:00:14. > :00:17.It's an ill wind, a week to the US election, and a Hurricane strikes
:00:17. > :00:24.the east coast. Both candidates start talking about the weather.
:00:24. > :00:28.Could the weather speak back. A force more powerful than the most
:00:28. > :00:31.powerful man on earth, could reshape the outcome. A race that
:00:31. > :00:35.has become closer and closer, is suddenly in the hands of something
:00:35. > :00:38.beyond the control of any man or woman.
:00:39. > :00:48.The epicentre of the Hurricane dubbed the Frankenstorm, will hit
:00:48. > :00:52.America, while we're on air. But already, it's causing havoc. We
:00:52. > :00:57.have a Democrat Democrat and a Republican to second guess the
:00:57. > :01:03.outcome. A million middle-class families will receive a letter this
:01:03. > :01:07.month, telling them how much child benefit they will lose. This is a
:01:07. > :01:12.benefit many MPs think should be preserved. It is a lot of pain and
:01:12. > :01:19.very little gain. The Treasury thinks they will raise �2.5 billion
:01:19. > :01:24.ay, but I suspect a lot will be written off. Is the fiscal pain
:01:24. > :01:29.worth the political gain, we will ask this lot. Is this dull-looking
:01:29. > :01:39.machine on our set the future of the Industrial Revolution. It will
:01:39. > :01:40.
:01:40. > :01:44.not just print on paper, but a real 3D pen.
:01:44. > :01:47.A week tomorrow, a America chooses who is to be the next President.
:01:47. > :01:51.Safe to say that million of Americans on the east coast,
:01:51. > :01:57.including the two main candidates, have other things on their mind, in
:01:57. > :02:01.the form of the benignly named monster, Hurricane Sandy. It is
:02:01. > :02:06.expected to hit land in the next hour. On this side of the Atlantic,
:02:06. > :02:11.where the Met Office hyperventilates at mild drizzle,
:02:11. > :02:13.extreme weather is a form of pornography. In the US it is all
:02:13. > :02:17.too real. We're in Washington tonight.
:02:18. > :02:23.Where is this Hurricane tonight, Mark? It is hitting the eastern sea
:02:23. > :02:27.board of the United States. It is a natural disaster, on an epic scale.
:02:27. > :02:30.60 million people affected, two million, it is estimated, have
:02:31. > :02:36.already lost power. Now this lashing I'm getting from the rain
:02:36. > :02:40.is in Washington DC, winds here are about 40-50 miles per hour at the
:02:40. > :02:44.moment. They will peak at around 80 later this evening. The real centre
:02:44. > :02:48.of this, though, the area people are really worried about, is a
:02:48. > :02:52.couple of hundred miles to the north, New Jersey, New York itself,
:02:52. > :02:57.reports tonight that power is being cut off in lower Manhatten, the
:02:57. > :03:03.centre of the financial industry. What is the expected or anticipated
:03:03. > :03:06.effect of this on the election? wouldn't think that this could
:03:06. > :03:11.really tip the contest one way or the other, but the two candidates
:03:11. > :03:15.are so close together, the pollsters are refusing to say who
:03:15. > :03:19.they think at this stage would win. It is well within the margin of
:03:19. > :03:23.error, that any small incremental political factor could tip it for
:03:23. > :03:27.one side or the other. Quite a lot of people tonight are speculating
:03:27. > :03:33.that this could play very much into President Obama's hands. Allowing
:03:33. > :03:37.him to take the reins of power, to manage the response to the disaster,
:03:37. > :03:40.stalling the called Romney surge in its tracks. There are those who
:03:40. > :03:46.think there are dangers too for the President, even the slightest slip
:03:46. > :03:48.on his part could give the Romney camp that necessary margin for
:03:49. > :03:54.victory. It is the kind of speculation that has been building,
:03:54. > :03:58.along with the storm, all day. This morning the Hallowe'en
:03:58. > :04:02.Superstorm. An historic force of nature, three storm systems
:04:02. > :04:07.colliding at once. 50 million people in its path, bracing for
:04:07. > :04:14.storm surges up to 11-feet high. this country there are plenty of
:04:14. > :04:17.people make a living finding a drama in a crisis. In the tsunami
:04:17. > :04:23.of superlatives, Hurricane Sandy will be the worst storm for 100
:04:23. > :04:27.years, a vortex of winds and water. Even if it doesn't quite live up to
:04:27. > :04:34.that, lives will almost certainly be lost, and state governors have
:04:34. > :04:39.been using that grim probability to concentrate minds. There will be
:04:39. > :04:44.people who die and are killed in this storm, we are ordering, and
:04:44. > :04:47.urging, all Marylanders to stay off the road for the next 36 hours.
:04:47. > :04:51.They are very dangerous conditions out there, we ask you not to put
:04:51. > :04:55.yourselves or your family in jeopardy, and not to put our first
:04:55. > :04:59.responders in jeopardy by irresponsibly going out on the
:04:59. > :05:02.roads. Thousands of flights cancelled. Along with the dire
:05:02. > :05:06.warnings have come panic-buying, and a lock-down of much of the
:05:06. > :05:11.eastern sea board. The federal Government has shut down, as have
:05:11. > :05:15.railways, airports and subways. In New Jersey in New York, where sea
:05:15. > :05:21.level rises of up to 10 feet are being forecast, there could be
:05:21. > :05:25.widespread flooding. Even next week's elections could be hit. How
:05:25. > :05:28.does the storm complicate the elections? If the storm had hit a
:05:29. > :05:32.few days later, it might have affected election day. In America
:05:32. > :05:36.we are vote ago lot more before election day than we used to,
:05:36. > :05:40.voting at voting site. In key states there is voting going on
:05:40. > :05:43.today and tomorrow, some of those days will be disrupted. Election
:05:43. > :05:48.early voting allows you the flexibility of voting another day.
:05:48. > :05:53.I'm not sure those people will ultimately stay home. Certainly the
:05:53. > :05:56.election is being directly affected by the storm over the next few days.
:05:56. > :05:59.Are these wise precautions or a case of national hysteria, we will
:05:59. > :06:03.know the answer by this time tomorrow. One thing is clear,
:06:03. > :06:07.though, from the politics of this situation, both of the men running
:06:07. > :06:10.for President know that it's far more dangerous for them to
:06:10. > :06:18.underplay the gravity of this situation, than it is to overstate
:06:18. > :06:22.So both candidates have cancelled their campaign events. The
:06:22. > :06:28.President, mindful of the damage that Hurricane Katrina did his
:06:28. > :06:32.predecessor, seven years ago, is very publicly taking charge of the
:06:32. > :06:39.relief efforts. Please listen to what your state and local officials
:06:39. > :06:43.are saying. When they tell you to evacuate, you need to evacuate. Do
:06:44. > :06:48.not delay, don't pause, don't question the instructions that are
:06:48. > :06:53.being given, because this is a serious storm, and it could
:06:53. > :06:56.potentially have fatal consequences if people haven't acted quickly.
:06:56. > :07:01.it relevant in the election, does it possibly provide a Catriona at
:07:01. > :07:11.the moment for the President, or is it just not on that sort of level?
:07:11. > :07:13.
:07:13. > :07:15.As we sit here, we will see. Presidential campaigns are about
:07:15. > :07:20.enhancing your positives and minimising your negatives.
:07:20. > :07:25.Campaigns are about driving home your message, and leaving as little
:07:25. > :07:32.as possible to chance. Now you have a potentially historic storm
:07:32. > :07:36.dropped into the final stages of an American political campaign.
:07:36. > :07:42.Katrina is, perhaps, potentially the great risk for the Obama
:07:42. > :07:45.administration. If you drop a Katrina-like performance into the
:07:45. > :07:52.latter stages of a political campaign, it is going to have an
:07:52. > :07:59.effect. It will feed existing perceptions and enhance your
:08:00. > :08:05.opposition's narrative. Special coverage starts right now.
:08:05. > :08:10.From ABC News, live in times square. For the Republican challengers, on
:08:10. > :08:13.the stump today in Ohio, the storm risks checking the momentum built
:08:13. > :08:18.up recently by their campaign. Today when we get home, put in our
:08:18. > :08:22.prayers the people in the east coast in the wake of this big storm
:08:22. > :08:27.that's coming. Let's not forget those fellow Americans of our's.
:08:27. > :08:31.This evening, the force of the storm is intensifying, and across
:08:31. > :08:35.the east of this country people await the outcome of the struggle
:08:35. > :08:42.against the elements and of which of the candidate might turn the
:08:42. > :08:46.storm to his political advantage. To discuss the political stakes of
:08:46. > :08:52.this perfect storm we have Robert Reich, the former labour secretary
:08:52. > :08:59.under Bill Clinton, in the positively Bambi conditions of 28
:08:59. > :09:04.degrees in California sun. And we have Zosia Mamet former adviser to
:09:04. > :09:09.George Bush. Start -- Pippa Malmgren, former adviser to gub.
:09:09. > :09:13.Will this have bir bipartisan results or favour one candidate
:09:13. > :09:16.over the other? I don't think the storm will have significant
:09:16. > :09:21.consequences in this election one way or another, to the extent that
:09:21. > :09:24.it has any consequences at all. It strikes me it is most likely to
:09:25. > :09:29.improve Obama's chances. Within the nation is in peril, or when a
:09:29. > :09:33.significant part of the nation is under some sort of danger, the
:09:33. > :09:37.country, at least in the United States, tends to remember why they
:09:37. > :09:41.want Government, why they want a strong Government, why leadership
:09:41. > :09:48.is important, why they respect and need a strong leader in the form of
:09:48. > :09:56.the President. Whoever is President, therefore, has a natural, almost
:09:56. > :10:00.inevitable chance to show that kind of leadership. George Bush didn't
:10:00. > :10:03.obviously win Katrina-hit New Orleans, but many politicians and
:10:03. > :10:09.Government generally have learned from Katrina, that Barack Obama is
:10:09. > :10:11.going to, he already has, taken charge. Right, Pippa Malmgren?
:10:11. > :10:15.respectfully disagree. We are used to storms all the time in the
:10:15. > :10:19.United States. This is a big one, no question about it. People
:10:19. > :10:25.wouldn't even remember Katrina had it not been for the levys being
:10:25. > :10:28.breached in New Orleans and a city coming to so much damage. It is all
:10:28. > :10:32.the magnitude. People also remember George Bush was said to have been
:10:32. > :10:35.extremely slow to react there? remember in the United States, it
:10:35. > :10:39.is not the role of the President of the United States to respond to
:10:39. > :10:43.this kind of event. The state authorities are the ones who define
:10:43. > :10:48.the response. We're in the middle of a presidential election? That is
:10:48. > :10:52.why the danger for President Obama is that he responds in a way that
:10:52. > :10:57.the public perceives to be strictly for electioneering purposes. He
:10:57. > :11:00.must be careful not to overplay his hand. The key thing is voter
:11:00. > :11:05.turnout, that is what mass most for the Democrats, anything that
:11:05. > :11:14.damages voter turnout is a problem for him. I think the storm will
:11:14. > :11:17.have passed by the time we get to polling. On one point it is
:11:17. > :11:20.important to know that the federal Government does have an important
:11:20. > :11:25.role to play. That is with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
:11:25. > :11:28.That is the federal agency that co- ordinates, not only the defence
:11:28. > :11:37.department, Homeland Security, but other branches and agencies of
:11:37. > :11:41.Government, when it comes to a natural disaster. That is where
:11:41. > :11:47.Government -- George W Bush let America down. This is where
:11:47. > :11:51.President Obama can help with his public image, and in practical ways,
:11:51. > :11:55.to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency does
:11:55. > :11:59.its work. Mitt Romney rgd a few week ago that under -- argued a few
:11:59. > :12:03.weeks ago that the agency ought to be disbanded and the responsibility
:12:03. > :12:09.left up to the state. That is an interesting perspective. Most
:12:09. > :12:13.natural disasters are not limited to one state. This particular
:12:13. > :12:17.Hurricane, Hurricane Sandy, is affecting six or seven states.
:12:17. > :12:22.Pippa Malmgren, at the very least, OK, the storm may be over by next
:12:22. > :12:26.Tuesday, it probably will be, but the most recent memory people will
:12:26. > :12:29.have of the President is of a man who appeared to be seized of the
:12:29. > :12:35.importance of the situation and ready to act? I think the bottom
:12:35. > :12:38.line is that this is not a race against George W Bush, nor is it a
:12:38. > :12:43.race about this Hurricane. I think this is an easy excuse to move away
:12:43. > :12:46.from the fundamental facts, which is Romney is pulling ahead in Ohio,
:12:46. > :12:51.which is state that isn't going to be very affected by this. Possibly,
:12:51. > :12:54.but in the meantime, Mitt Romney can't get out there and campaign
:12:54. > :12:58.about unemployment and foreign policy mistakes as he sees them and
:12:58. > :13:03.the rest? The Midwest isn't as affected by this as the east coast.
:13:03. > :13:06.The east coast is shut down, they are shutting down highways in
:13:07. > :13:11.connet kit. The middle of the country is where the vote will be
:13:11. > :13:16.decided. That is the key to the race. The bottom line is this is
:13:16. > :13:20.the closest presidential race in modern history, tighter than the
:13:20. > :13:24.Carter-Regan race. It will be a photo finish, and the risks is if
:13:24. > :13:27.Obama is lucky enough to win, he may win the Electoral College and
:13:27. > :13:32.lose the popular vote, which means he won't have a mandate. At best,
:13:32. > :13:36.for Romney, he can win the popular vote, and the Electoral College. I
:13:36. > :13:41.think that understanding the true state of play in the race is the
:13:41. > :13:51.most important thing to your viewers. Robert Reich? We have come
:13:51. > :13:51.
:13:51. > :13:58.a long way from the storm now? most recent case of elections where
:13:58. > :14:04.we had a close race was Bush against Gore, I think that pippa is
:14:04. > :14:07.right, most -- Pippa is right, most Americans don't feel imperiled by
:14:07. > :14:11.the storm, but they are still reminded by the storm of the
:14:11. > :14:15.importance of Government. I think it is also important to say, that
:14:15. > :14:20.we all, here in the United States, and I assume you in Britain, hope
:14:20. > :14:28.that this storm does not have a devastatingly negative impact on
:14:28. > :14:33.life, and limb. The politics come secondary, nobody, I don't think
:14:33. > :14:36.anybody in washing, either Mitt Romney or -- Washington, either
:14:36. > :14:40.Mitt Romney or Barack Obama are thinking about the election at this
:14:40. > :14:44.point in time? I have to disagree, think everybody is thinking first
:14:44. > :14:49.and foremost about the election. The storm just destroys the bunting
:14:49. > :14:53.up and about in towns and places. The key here is, this is the kind
:14:53. > :15:00.of race where we could see the vote being so close that observers call
:15:00. > :15:04.for counts. And I do think you are right to say the Bush-Gore race,
:15:05. > :15:09.the risk that we have that kind of altercation over a small number of
:15:09. > :15:15.votes in a specific location, is very high, given how tight this
:15:15. > :15:20.race is. Thank you very much. Now, if you are lucky enough to
:15:20. > :15:25.earn more than �50,000, or you live with someone who earns more than
:15:25. > :15:28.�50,000 a year, and have children, look out for a letter this week. It
:15:28. > :15:32.will contain glad tidings that the amount of money you can expect the
:15:32. > :15:36.state to pay you is going to be cut. Your child benefit might even be
:15:36. > :15:40.cut to nothing. The letter is part of the attempt to cut public
:15:40. > :15:50.spending, and based on the idea that the better off should
:15:50. > :15:50.
:15:50. > :15:53.contribute more than the less well off. The official inquiries and
:15:53. > :16:02.reports detail any number of Government cock-ups. But could
:16:02. > :16:09.there be a new one looming. One that we could tentatively call
:16:09. > :16:14."baby shambles". It is going to be a lot of pain and very little gain.
:16:14. > :16:18.The Treasury thinks they will raise �2.5 billion a year from this, I
:16:18. > :16:20.suspect a lot of money will be written off, and it will be a
:16:20. > :16:24.massive administrative burden in years to come. The first couple of
:16:24. > :16:26.years it will be very, very difficult to administer. Hopefully
:16:27. > :16:31.after that it will settle down and people will understand what they
:16:32. > :16:38.need to do and not do. The changes are in child benefit,
:16:38. > :16:42.and will affect around 1.2 million families. It could mean that 70% of
:16:42. > :16:48.them lose all of their child benefit, another 30% will lose part,
:16:48. > :16:52.the average loss will be something like �1300 a year. It will mean
:16:52. > :16:57.that roughly half a million people will now have to fill in a self-
:16:57. > :17:03.assessment tax form when previously they didn't. To be fair, we don't
:17:03. > :17:07.yet know whether this will turn out to be a babyshamble, but, from
:17:07. > :17:10.January 7th nexty, George Osborne is trying to deliver on his promise
:17:10. > :17:15.to withdraw child benefit from the better off. Instead of simply not
:17:15. > :17:18.paying them the money, he wants them not to claim it. Or rather, in
:17:18. > :17:23.the official advice from HMRC, but to claim the benefit, but elect not
:17:23. > :17:27.to take the money. If they do take it, it will be clawed back from the
:17:27. > :17:31.highest paid member of the household, via the tax system. You
:17:31. > :17:35.can see why some think this might get rather complicated.
:17:35. > :17:40.difficulty is, that the mother, typically, claims the child benefit,
:17:40. > :17:44.and then, the clawback is through the self-assessment tax system. If
:17:44. > :17:49.you have, for example, a mother staying at home, not working,
:17:49. > :17:53.claiming child benefit, it is the husband who is working, if he's
:17:53. > :17:56.earning more than �50,000, he's going to have to do a self-
:17:56. > :18:02.assessment tax return, because he will have the clawback of that
:18:02. > :18:05.child been fit. And many have identified other potential problems
:18:05. > :18:09.with this. Not least many Conservative MPs think that their
:18:09. > :18:14.party should be in the business of simplifying the tax system, not
:18:14. > :18:18.adding another layer of complexity. And, they think, it also sends the
:18:18. > :18:23.wrong message as regards aspiration. David Cameron, quite rightly, made
:18:23. > :18:27.the case that we have to be on the side of aspiration, and of the
:18:27. > :18:30.strivers, at his most recent party conference. One of the biggest
:18:30. > :18:34.problems I have with what is being propose the at the moment, it is
:18:34. > :18:39.precisely those strivers, people who are aspirational, will get
:18:39. > :18:44.worst hit from this. I accept this as a central London MP, someone in
:18:44. > :18:47.my seat earning �50,000 a year isn't in the ranks of the
:18:47. > :18:52.superwealthy, which isn't like that in other parts of the UK. There is
:18:52. > :18:58.this big worry that we will end up clobbering a lot of people who are
:18:58. > :19:01.some of the most hard working people, and most likely Tory voting
:19:01. > :19:08.aspirational people. That doesn't make too much sense. This is only
:19:08. > :19:14.the Government's second attempt to get the policy right to be pair.
:19:14. > :19:19.They started off saying that higher rate taxpayers would be the ones to
:19:19. > :19:22.lose child benefit, but there were cries about cliff edge issues. Now
:19:22. > :19:26.the claimants are the better off, it shows how fiendishly difficult
:19:26. > :19:31.it is to withdraw benefits from anybody, even in the teeth of a
:19:31. > :19:35.definite reduction programme. I don't expect them to welcome this.
:19:35. > :19:39.I perfectly understand why people who don't feel wealthy, of course,
:19:39. > :19:44.may not feel wealthy at all, given all the other costs they face today,
:19:44. > :19:48.don't like this change. But I would ask them to reflect for a minute
:19:48. > :19:52.that there are many other people. The vast majority of people in this
:19:52. > :19:55.country, who are on much lower incomes than them, and who are also
:19:55. > :19:59.having to make sacrifices. When George Osborne announced this
:20:00. > :20:04.policy change, way back in 2010, he had had no intention of ever
:20:04. > :20:10.implementing it. That is why the details were so sketchy. Together,
:20:10. > :20:13.in the national interest, thank you very much. He wanted to get the
:20:13. > :20:19.political credit from being prepared to hit the better off, but
:20:19. > :20:23.would, it is argued, some time around now, say, you know what, the
:20:23. > :20:28.deficit he reduction is going so well, we don't actually have to
:20:28. > :20:32.follow through. Cue another round of applause for Mr O. In 2010 we
:20:32. > :20:35.needed to make statement about universal benefits, a statement
:20:35. > :20:39.made about being all in this together. There was hope at that
:20:39. > :20:42.juncture, by the time we were in the second half of the parliament,
:20:42. > :20:45.many of the most acute financial problems would be behind us. That's
:20:45. > :20:50.why, as I say, I'm very much supportive of the Government in
:20:50. > :20:53.trying to get the deficit down, therefore I wouldn't want to be
:20:53. > :20:57.seen that I'm just standing on behalf of a small minority. It
:20:57. > :20:59.seems to me this child benefit reform has all the makings of
:21:00. > :21:03.something that could be politically very difficult for the Government,
:21:04. > :21:10.but also it is going to raise far less money than we think. It would
:21:10. > :21:15.be a sense of injustice. Remember that the overwhelming
:21:15. > :21:18.majority of child benefit climbants won't be affected at all, --
:21:18. > :21:21.claimants won't be affected at all. Today the Government released
:21:21. > :21:25.polling data which suggested the vast majority of voters, including
:21:25. > :21:30.the better off, think this is a good idea. Whether that still holds
:21:30. > :21:36.true when it starts costing them money, that is another matter.
:21:36. > :21:39.Let's discuss a bit of this with David Grossman. There is a piece in
:21:39. > :21:44.tomorrow morning's Telegraph that is quite complicated on the legal
:21:44. > :21:49.aspect of this. Yes, the headline that child benefit cuts might be
:21:49. > :21:54.illegal. It shows how complex this issue is, and how little time the
:21:54. > :21:58.Government has to nail down all the angles on this before January 7th.
:21:58. > :22:02.The Institute of Chartered accountants of England and Wales, a
:22:02. > :22:05.trade body, have suggested in their briefing to MPs on the subject,
:22:05. > :22:10.that this move might be illegal because it is discriminatory. If
:22:10. > :22:14.you imagine two workers both on �06,000, side by side, one of them
:22:14. > :22:17.gets benefits from another European country, as they are entitled to do,
:22:17. > :22:22.because they are a national of that country, but they both pay tax in
:22:22. > :22:27.the UK. So a British person and a European national paying tax in the
:22:27. > :22:31.UK, the same rate of tax, they earn exactly the same, one of them will
:22:31. > :22:35.have their child benefit clawed back and the other won't. The
:22:35. > :22:39.chartered institute reckon that is discriminatory. Under European law.
:22:39. > :22:43.What do the Treasury say about that? The Treasury, I have been in
:22:43. > :22:48.touch, they say this is not a new objection or oh, they say they have
:22:48. > :22:52.got very -- observation, they say they have strong legal advice to
:22:52. > :22:54.say they are fully entitled to tax people in this country,
:22:54. > :22:58.irrespective of whatever benefits they get elsewhere. They are
:22:58. > :23:01.confident, but we have seen in the past that doesn't mean if it came
:23:01. > :23:04.to a legal challenge they would necessarily win.
:23:04. > :23:09.The Treasury didn't want to talk about this with us here tonight.
:23:09. > :23:13.But instead we have the Conservative MP, Nadhim Zawahi, the
:23:13. > :23:16.Shadow Treasury Minister, Chris Leslie, and Cole Porter from the
:23:16. > :23:23.Institute of Economic Affairs. Why do you want to penalise people who
:23:23. > :23:28.are working hard, and doing reasonably well? We don't. But we
:23:28. > :23:34.are, because of Chris's party, still, today, borrowing �426
:23:34. > :23:39.million a day. When we go to bed tonight, and wake up tomorrow, we
:23:39. > :23:42.will have notched up another �426 million. We have to balance the
:23:43. > :23:46.books. And we have said those with the broadest shoulders should bear
:23:46. > :23:51.the greatest pain. But you don't want to do this? Hold on a second,
:23:51. > :23:56.let me finish on this point, it is an important point. It is only the
:23:56. > :24:02.15% of the top earners in the country, who are, at the moment,
:24:02. > :24:06.the beneficiaries of the child benefit, that will be affect. 80%,
:24:06. > :24:11.your piece earlier shows will not be affected by this. I have just
:24:11. > :24:14.had a baby in the Zawahi family. Congratulations? Why should the
:24:14. > :24:17.strivers of the country, people working really hard, trying to pay
:24:17. > :24:21.their bills, when we are cutting welfare, why should they pay for
:24:21. > :24:24.child benefit for my daughter. don't know, I don't understand why
:24:24. > :24:29.you don't want to cut it. You said you don't want to cut it. You don't
:24:29. > :24:32.want to do this? We don't want to do it, because it is taking away
:24:32. > :24:36.something from people who themselves are having to cope with
:24:36. > :24:39.bills. Do you support the measure?
:24:39. > :24:44.chaotic shambles, clawing back universal child benefit. You have
:24:44. > :24:47.to be kidding, this is, by all standards, one of the most
:24:47. > :24:50.unthought through changes in the tax system. Not only are you going
:24:50. > :24:55.to get, what is it, a million people receiving letters,
:24:55. > :25:00.explaining them that, well you have to talk to your partners about your
:25:00. > :25:04.income, if you can't find out about that, you can ring up HMRC, they
:25:05. > :25:09.will tell you if partner has higher or lower earnings, but not the
:25:09. > :25:16.whole thing. The whole thing is a bureaucratic expense. Let me ask
:25:16. > :25:19.about that very question. I would love nothing more than reverse this
:25:19. > :25:22.particular policy. Heaven knows what the state of the public
:25:22. > :25:26.finances by 2015, if you think borrowing is bad now, it is going
:25:26. > :25:31.up under your Government. You are not making a commitment you would
:25:31. > :25:34.reverse it if you regain power? need a defence of some of these
:25:35. > :25:39.universal benefits. The next stop will be universal NHS. You will not
:25:39. > :25:43.defend them by restoring them? key thing to mention is they are
:25:43. > :25:46.talking about taxing the highest earners. You can't give a straight
:25:46. > :25:52.forward answer to a straight forward question? Why give a tax
:25:52. > :25:56.cut to people on �150,000 above, it is a completely inconsistent policy
:25:56. > :26:00.from the Government. You shouldn't separate out universal benefits
:26:00. > :26:04.from the wider tax system, the wealthiest people should pay more.
:26:04. > :26:07.What should you make of this decision? Picking up the point
:26:07. > :26:11.about universal benefits, when Labour left office a third of
:26:11. > :26:15.households in the UK were dependant on the state for more than half of
:26:15. > :26:18.their income. I think the principle, that you say, actually, the point
:26:18. > :26:24.of the welfare state is that it should be there to help those
:26:24. > :26:28.people who really cannot survive on their own is the right one. And in
:26:28. > :26:33.some senses I think this policy decision is a nod in this direction.
:26:33. > :26:37.The issue with it, if we're going to say that someone like Adele, or
:26:37. > :26:42.it is nonsense that someone like Adele is eligible for child benefit,
:26:42. > :26:46.equally we have to say that Paul McCartney is eligible for Winter
:26:46. > :26:51.Fuel Allowance. Do you say the same about the NHS, that is a form of
:26:51. > :26:55.welfare, if you means test child benefit, do you means test the NHS?
:26:55. > :27:00.You are in favour of Adele being eligible for child benefit, the
:27:00. > :27:04.answer to that question, is yes, you are in favour of Adele getting
:27:04. > :27:09.child benefit? I think it is important to defend the universal
:27:09. > :27:14.benefit. They should be paying more in tax. That is why the 50p rate
:27:14. > :27:18.should not be cut to give away �40,000 to people like Adele
:27:18. > :27:25.earning over �1 million a year. have to look at it in the context
:27:25. > :27:28.of the nation's finances, the reality is we are borrowing so much
:27:28. > :27:31.money to fund this, in one sense you could say the people who are
:27:31. > :27:34.going to be paying for this child benefit, because it is borrowed
:27:34. > :27:37.money, it will be the children themselves. It will be their tax
:27:37. > :27:40.when they grow up. We are passing the bill for this massive welfare
:27:40. > :27:46.state on to our children and the next generation. We have to deal
:27:46. > :27:55.with those things. Have you seen how much it will cost to administer
:27:55. > :27:57.the complex system. �1.7 billion every year, you kiep saying, your
:27:57. > :28:01.party keeps saying that -- keep saying, your party keeps saying
:28:01. > :28:05.that you want to cut the spending of the state, and make sure you act
:28:06. > :28:09.responsibly, this time round, please believe in us. Every time we
:28:09. > :28:12.introduce something that delivers some of that, you go against it. I
:28:12. > :28:16.would like you to explain to your voters, the polling evidence,
:28:16. > :28:20.including those people adversely affected. Your opinion poll.
:28:20. > :28:24.wasn't mine. The Conservative Party opinion poll. It wasn't my opinion
:28:24. > :28:27.poll. It was done by Populus, which is an independent pollster.
:28:27. > :28:33.Commissioned by the Conservative Party. It doesn't matter if it was
:28:33. > :28:36.commissioned, you commission polls do. It does. The majority of people
:28:36. > :28:40.adversely affected by the policy support it. Explain that to the
:28:40. > :28:42.voters at the next election, and explain to them that you will
:28:42. > :28:45.reverse this? The cost for childcare for getting by, for
:28:45. > :28:50.people on middle incomes, who are striving to do their best, are just
:28:50. > :28:54.going to get worse because of this policy S the cost of administering
:28:54. > :28:58.it are phenomenal. The Treasury are saying over �100 million. What is
:28:58. > :29:04.worse, if you really believed in taking money from those highest
:29:04. > :29:07.earners, you wouldn't be giving away such a task to those earning
:29:07. > :29:11.over �150,000. Commit live on Newsnight you will reverse it.
:29:11. > :29:15.has already refused to do that. There you go, that is your answer.
:29:15. > :29:19.It is a difference between the parties, I think we should tax the
:29:20. > :29:22.highest earners, that 1%, much more. Where is public opinion, their
:29:22. > :29:27.trading opinions about opinion polls. Do you think we have reached
:29:27. > :29:32.a stage in this country now, where people consider that the state has
:29:32. > :29:35.an obligation towards a new born child, regardless of the level of
:29:35. > :29:38.wealth of the parents? I think what is interesting is when you look at
:29:38. > :29:42.different polls around at the moment, you find that actually the
:29:42. > :29:45.public is in favour of things like getting rid of lots of these, like
:29:45. > :29:48.Winter Fuel Allowance. They are in favour of that. Do you think the
:29:48. > :29:51.state has a role, doesn't it? does believe the state has a role.
:29:51. > :29:54.But I think people are very concerned about the level of
:29:54. > :29:59.borrowing, they understand we need some reform. When you look at what
:29:59. > :30:02.Government has become, in some sense it has almost become this
:30:02. > :30:07.arbiter between different interest groups lobbying Government to try
:30:07. > :30:10.to get as much money redistribute today their demographic. I think
:30:10. > :30:13.people don't like that, they are waking up to that. Part of the
:30:13. > :30:17.reason we are seeing people, saying this situation is absurd, that
:30:18. > :30:22.these very wealthy people are geting these universal benefits.
:30:22. > :30:26.Juef the tax system to do it. We can't afford, that it is stifling
:30:26. > :30:33.the economy. It is why we have a million unemployed people in this
:30:33. > :30:38.country. Do you think someone on �50,000 a year is rich? It depends
:30:38. > :30:43.on things like where people live in the country. I know loads of people
:30:43. > :30:47.on �50,000, who are doing a sum about the affects for their family.
:30:47. > :30:50.Why not let people keep more of their money. The context of the
:30:50. > :30:54.discussion, at the same time the Government is bringing more people
:30:54. > :30:57.into the 40p rate. There needs to be a principle and discussion, to
:30:58. > :31:05.say what kind of country do we want to be. Do we want to be a country
:31:05. > :31:10.where we go back to next month's the 70-year anniversary of Bevanage,
:31:10. > :31:15.do we want to be a welfare state supporting those who need support,
:31:15. > :31:20.or do we want to be a country where we actually spend so much we have
:31:20. > :31:25.to borrow to fund that? By the end of this parliament, the people
:31:25. > :31:28.earning up to �10,000 are taken out of the tax system, they don't pay
:31:28. > :31:31.any tax. I'm proud to say I'm part of the Government that delivered.
:31:31. > :31:36.That that's the direction of flow from this Government, we would like
:31:36. > :31:41.to hear what the policy-free zone from the Labour Party says about
:31:41. > :31:44.that. We disagree on this, it is the thin end of the wedge, all of
:31:44. > :31:46.the arguments apply to the universal NHS, which is also part
:31:46. > :31:51.of those core welfare principles. It is about what sort of society
:31:51. > :31:54.you believe in. If you think that people on higher incomes need to be
:31:54. > :31:58.paying more, well you do it through the progressive tax system. What
:31:58. > :32:04.you don't do is give it a �3 billion tax cut to millionaire, it
:32:04. > :32:07.is very simple. We have ring-fenced it, you will cut it. It is the
:32:07. > :32:12.slippery slope. We are told we are in the throws of
:32:12. > :32:15.a second Industrial Revolution in which -- thros of a second
:32:15. > :32:20.Industrial Revolution, where science transforms the way we do
:32:20. > :32:25.everything. One of the most transformative technologies is 3D
:32:25. > :32:30.printing t sounds absurd and impossible. It promises to
:32:30. > :32:40.refashion whole areas of design. We will see what the 3D printer in the
:32:40. > :32:43.
:32:43. > :32:51.studio is doing. Beautifully created objects made with care and
:32:51. > :32:57.decision. -- precision. They weren't been sculpted, cast or
:32:57. > :33:07.machine pressed, a different process has been deployed. This is
:33:07. > :33:08.
:33:08. > :33:11.3D printing. At a design studio in London's Shoreditch, they cannot
:33:11. > :33:15.only conceive product, they can make them. Thanks to a technology
:33:15. > :33:24.that is falling in price and so becoming more accessible. It allows
:33:24. > :33:29.you to make, just about anything. I'm being scanned, with software,
:33:29. > :33:34.then building a precise template of my face. That will then be used to
:33:34. > :33:39.print out a 3D me. So I have been scanned, what's next in the process.
:33:39. > :33:43.We take that data and prepare it into a 3D print-ready file. We take
:33:43. > :33:47.it over here to this machine. don't send it off to a factory
:33:47. > :33:54.somewhere. Right here, it is an office-friendly machine, sitting in
:33:54. > :33:58.the corner, humming away. This will print your file layer by layer.
:33:58. > :34:01.This machine prints in a powder- based material. It is a whole new
:34:01. > :34:04.way of producing particular customised and individual objects,
:34:05. > :34:09.individual to the user, I think that is one of the fantastic things
:34:09. > :34:19.about 3D printing, and the ability to have it in your hand within
:34:19. > :34:35.
:34:35. > :34:40.hours rather than waiting for it to be shipped around the world. Let's
:34:40. > :34:43.have a look. There I am, complete with chain! It would have been
:34:43. > :34:48.possible to make a mini-me like this many years ago, but it would
:34:48. > :34:51.have been much more expensive and time-consuming. What 3D printing
:34:51. > :34:55.has begun to do is take manufacturing out of the factory
:34:55. > :35:00.and into a small design studio like this. But there are some who
:35:00. > :35:09.believe it can go much further. Heralding a whole new Industrial
:35:09. > :35:15.Revolution. So, what is 3D printing? It starts with a digital
:35:15. > :35:18.design or scan, that's then fed into the printer. The process is
:35:18. > :35:23.also called additive manufacturing, because it involves building up
:35:23. > :35:29.objects, layer by layer, rather than pressing them out. Right now a
:35:29. > :35:33.limited range of material can be used. Mainly plastics and resin.
:35:33. > :35:38.But the first metal printers are emerging. It is a big fall in
:35:38. > :35:44.primes that is driving take up. In 2002, even a budget 3D printer
:35:44. > :35:48.might have cost �20,000, today you can get a desktop device for under
:35:48. > :35:52.�1,000. The range of objects the technology can deliver keeps
:35:52. > :35:59.expanding. In the medical world it is being used in dental work. And
:35:59. > :36:07.this is a replacement jawbone, built out of titanium powder. The
:36:07. > :36:14.fashion industry is experimenting, here is a 3D bikini. This flute
:36:14. > :36:17.came out, but needs fine tuning. At lock burrow university they are
:36:17. > :36:21.even printing concrete and wondering how the construction
:36:21. > :36:26.industry can be transformed. For some this is a revolution that
:36:26. > :36:32.starts at home. The great drive for me is to improve the quality of
:36:32. > :36:38.home 3D printing. In his loafing room in South-East London, Paul
:36:38. > :36:48.devotes -- living room in South- East London, Paul devotes his time
:36:48. > :36:51.to improve 3D printing. He has developed printing of a 50th of a
:36:51. > :36:55.millimeter thick. It wasn't long ago people thought you wouldn't
:36:55. > :36:59.have a computer in every single home. You certainly wouldn't have a
:36:59. > :37:02.nice colour printer in every home. Now every home has at least one
:37:02. > :37:07.printer. When you get to the stage where you have to load a file,
:37:07. > :37:12.press a button. That will be the stage where they will become
:37:12. > :37:17.mainstream. Paul is part of an on- line movement, which uploads and
:37:17. > :37:21.shares designs for other 3D printer hobbyists to download. There in
:37:22. > :37:25.lies a looming problem. Any revolutionary new technology
:37:25. > :37:29.provides both opportunities and threats, just ask the music
:37:29. > :37:33.industry. As 3D printing becomes more common place, the value of the
:37:33. > :37:38.digital designs fed into the printers should rise. But so will
:37:38. > :37:41.the threat of piracy. Once your designs have escaped on to the
:37:41. > :37:45.Internet, there is nothing to stop anyone anywhere from printing out
:37:45. > :37:49.your products without your permission. So, one industry should
:37:49. > :37:54.benefit from the rise of 3D printing, that is the patent
:37:54. > :38:00.lawyers. This is a 3D print. These, for
:38:00. > :38:04.instance, are rare art facts from Cambridge's Fitzwilliam Museum, or
:38:04. > :38:10.rather replicas. 3D printed for the museum shop. Ownership of the scans
:38:10. > :38:14.that produces these objects could be very valuable. But one leading
:38:14. > :38:17.designer thinks the new technology could help outwit the copiers.
:38:17. > :38:20.time to market place will be quicker, that is crucial in the
:38:20. > :38:24.world of intellectual property, where you need to get out there
:38:24. > :38:29.quickly and take advantage of your intention before someone copies it.
:38:29. > :38:34.At the Royal College of Art's new dies on Building, some graduates
:38:34. > :38:38.are being helped to turn student ideas into real product. 3D
:38:38. > :38:41.printing is already an essential part of making proto-type, soon it
:38:41. > :38:46.could transform how products are manufactured. You can be
:38:46. > :38:51.independent, you don't need tool makers, moulder, caster, foundries,
:38:51. > :38:54.you can do it all your self, with a relatively simple, I hope, machine,
:38:54. > :38:58.you can make things all over the place. You could make them very
:38:58. > :39:03.locally, to each country you are selling in. You could get rid of
:39:03. > :39:10.freight costs and import duties and all sorts of things. I think,
:39:10. > :39:15.eventually, it will completely transform the way products are made.
:39:15. > :39:19.From the hobbyist experimenting at home, to industrial designers, with
:39:19. > :39:23.ever more sophisticated technique, 3D printing is advancing on all
:39:23. > :39:28.fronts. Just like virtual reality in the 1990, it is the subject of
:39:28. > :39:32.huge, perhaps inflated expectation. But its exponents believe this is a
:39:32. > :39:36.revolution that will deliver on its promise.
:39:36. > :39:40.We come behind the set, where one of the these printers has been
:39:40. > :39:49.whirring away, throughout the programme, and with us is Paul
:39:49. > :39:53.Webber from the 3D printing can be, object. It has clunked? It is
:39:53. > :39:58.paused. What is it making? It is printing, let me open the lid and
:39:58. > :40:01.you can have a lock. It has been printing 12 pens at the moment. It
:40:02. > :40:06.has been printing them in multiple material. So there is some begins
:40:06. > :40:11.on the cabinet behind you, I have also got one here you can have a
:40:11. > :40:15.look at it. It is a complicated lattice work over a spiral struck
:40:15. > :40:20.tue, that you could never normally -- structure, that you couldn't
:40:20. > :40:25.norm r never normally produce it t only these technologies can only
:40:25. > :40:30.produce it. With the particular parts, printing with rubber and
:40:30. > :40:35.rigid material at the same time. has done this from a drawing, has
:40:35. > :40:40.it? That's right. It is digital forming developed the software to
:40:40. > :40:45.create the pens. Someone has put a drawing in, and what comes out at
:40:45. > :40:50.the end is the complete 3D object? It is the complete pen without the
:40:50. > :40:58.ink stick. There is no ink in it? That is a bit of a problem with a
:40:58. > :41:03.pen. You do need that. Can I pick unup. Will I burn my hand. You have
:41:03. > :41:07.some there -- Can I pick the pen up. Will I burn my head. These are some
:41:07. > :41:15.you made earlier. They are all stuck to the tray. If you do this,
:41:15. > :41:21.it takes it off. It -- It has a substance around it, it can't print
:41:21. > :41:25.the cast in midair. It is printing a jelly-like structure to keep it
:41:25. > :41:30.in place, it gets washed away at the end of the process and you have
:41:30. > :41:37.what you have in the hand. Does this have a domestic application or
:41:37. > :41:43.is it really industrial? Printers are not used commonly for
:41:43. > :41:47.manufacture at this point in time. There is certain places where it is
:41:47. > :41:50.used for manufacture, most are medical-related. They are adept at
:41:50. > :42:00.printing one-off piece, with the likes of a hearing aid, we have
:42:00. > :42:05.that over there. There is over 300,000. I have one here. OK, right.
:42:05. > :42:09.Let's see. Hearing aid, stick some wax in your ear and take an
:42:10. > :42:16.impression and mould a bit of plastic around it, that is done,
:42:16. > :42:22.how? The doctor will actually put an algenate substance in your ear
:42:22. > :42:27.to get an impression. Your inner ear is as bespoke as your finger
:42:27. > :42:32.print. It gets taken out of your ear, three dimensionly scanned, and
:42:32. > :42:36.adapted in software, so it is an appropriate fit, and has an
:42:36. > :42:42.appropriate channel to have the electronics fitted. These are all
:42:42. > :42:46.the other things you have made from drawings? Presumably you could go
:42:46. > :42:51.on-line, presumably and pick up a design, and then download it to one
:42:51. > :42:54.of these printers and get the actual product?? Absolutely. The
:42:55. > :42:59.way things are going with the future, there is already sites
:42:59. > :43:02.established where you can download a file and print T because not so
:43:02. > :43:07.many people have home printer systems at the moment, the sites
:43:07. > :43:16.are few and far between. How much do these cost? These start at �15
:43:16. > :43:21.though, but go all the way up to well in secs of �-- in excess of �
:43:21. > :43:26.50,000. You won't put these in people's homes? They have them in
:43:26. > :43:30.houses now to facilitate clientele and bring business their way.
:43:30. > :43:34.is bad news if you make machine tools? It can be, this can print
:43:34. > :43:39.the impossible. You can literally print a ship in a bottle. You can
:43:39. > :43:42.make a ship in a bottle? Yes, it is additive manufacturing, it is
:43:42. > :43:47.basically putting one layer on top of the other, you are not held by
:43:47. > :43:51.the constraints of CNC, where you are whittling away at a block to
:43:51. > :43:55.try to create the finished item. With this type of technology, the
:43:55. > :43:59.world is your oyster. Thank you very much, that's all for tonight.
:43:59. > :44:09.We will no doubt see what damage Sandy doss bit morning. Hopefully
:44:09. > :44:35.
:44:35. > :44:38.everyone stays safe. I will be back Hello there, we have had some
:44:38. > :44:42.relatively quiet weather so far this week across the UK. Actually
:44:42. > :44:46.through Tuesday we will have sunny spells across England and Wales.
:44:46. > :44:49.More cloud and rain gathers up into the North West, it turns
:44:49. > :44:52.increasingly breezy. A rather cool feel here. The North West of
:44:52. > :44:56.England will have showers first thing in the morning. To the east
:44:56. > :45:01.sunny spells, perhaps highs of around eight or nine. The south-
:45:01. > :45:05.east corner, highs of ten or 11. Disappointingly cool for this time
:45:05. > :45:10.of year. Fine and dry along the south coast, an increase of cloud
:45:10. > :45:15.for Cornwall and western Wales. For the south-east, Cardiff should see
:45:15. > :45:19.highs of ten degrees isolated showers into Anglesey, into the
:45:19. > :45:24.North West of eing lan. Most of the showers should confine themselves
:45:24. > :45:29.to the far north coast. Increasingly strong winds, and
:45:29. > :45:34.persistent rain, after a cool start. A disappointing feel in Scotland.
:45:34. > :45:37.It stays cool, wet and windy Tuesday into Wednesday, for much of
:45:37. > :45:40.northern England, Northern Ireland, and for Scotland. A little quieter
:45:40. > :45:44.further south. We keep the sunny spells. But the cloud will thicken
:45:44. > :45:48.for England and Wales during Wednesday. With rain arriving late