:00:47. > :00:54.Good afternoon. It is the Budget that keeps on
:00:54. > :00:59.giving - but not in a good way. After pasty tax, it is charity tax
:00:59. > :01:05.that damages the Government. How much damage has been done to the
:01:05. > :01:11.Tories for next month's elections? Grant Shapps joins us for the
:01:11. > :01:15.Sunday interviews. It we have been to Sweden - when it
:01:15. > :01:22.comes to tax they let it all hang out. Should we follow suit and make
:01:22. > :01:30.tax returns public? Not just for politicians but for you and me
:01:30. > :01:37.Nigel Farage and David Aaronovitch go head-to-head.
:01:37. > :01:43.Here to look at the week ahead and Twitter.
:01:43. > :01:47.In London, lagging in the polls - VAT is him and his party. In a
:01:47. > :01:54.series of interviews with the Lord Mayor candidates, we will be
:01:54. > :02:00.talking to Brian Paddick. That's coming up in the next hour,
:02:00. > :02:04.but first the news. Good afternoon. The Afghan capital,
:02:04. > :02:08.Kabul is coming under a series of sustained attacks. The
:02:08. > :02:13.international airport, Parliament building, and number of embassies
:02:13. > :02:19.and a hotel have come under siege. The Taliban says it is carrying out
:02:19. > :02:24.the assault. Several areas of Kabul came under
:02:24. > :02:31.attack. It appeared to be a well co-ordinated operations. Explosions
:02:31. > :02:36.and gunfire were heard. The first attack came close to Kabul's
:02:36. > :02:39.diplomatic quarter. It was reported several armed men tried to enter
:02:39. > :02:47.the Afghan Parliament, but were driven back by Afghan security
:02:47. > :02:52.forces. They have also been attacks in Jalalabad and gardeners. Reports
:02:52. > :02:56.from Afghanistan are still sketchy. But the Taliban has admitted
:02:56. > :03:00.responsibility. A spokesman said a group of armed suicide bombers had
:03:00. > :03:06.launched attacks on NATO headquarters, Parliament and
:03:06. > :03:09.diplomatic residences. A Foreign Office spokesman in London has
:03:09. > :03:15.confirmed there is an ongoing incident and they are keeping in
:03:15. > :03:19.close contact with embassy staff in Kabul.
:03:19. > :03:25.Ed Miliband has called for individual donations to political
:03:25. > :03:29.parties to be limited to �5,000. He said it would include donations
:03:29. > :03:37.from trade unions, but not fees are paid by individual union members.
:03:37. > :03:41.The Conservatives have called the proposals a virtual meaningless.
:03:41. > :03:45.Everyone at Westminster agrees money and politics are linked to
:03:45. > :03:51.much. And all three political parties want to become less reliant
:03:51. > :03:55.on wealthy donors. But talks on the subject just keep stalling. Ed
:03:55. > :04:01.Miliband says it is time to try again to clean up the political
:04:01. > :04:06.process. Let's take the big money out of politics. I hope Nick Clegg
:04:06. > :04:09.and David Cameron will come forward with their own proposals in which
:04:09. > :04:14.they say they are willing to take a bit of pain and make changes that
:04:14. > :04:21.it will make things harder for no political parties but it is in the
:04:21. > :04:27.interests of democracy. The Labour leader wants a cap on individual
:04:27. > :04:31.donations of �5,000. Lower than the �10,000 cap suggested by sect
:04:31. > :04:36.Christopher Kelly from the independent committee on standards
:04:36. > :04:41.and public alike. It is also lower than the Conservative's proposed
:04:41. > :04:47.cap of �50,000. But Labour is not suggesting any reform from the way
:04:47. > :04:51.it gets millions of pounds from affiliated unions by membership the
:04:51. > :04:55.levees. The Conservatives say without back cuneiform Ed
:04:55. > :05:00.Miliband's proposals are virtually meaningless. So an agreement on
:05:00. > :05:04.party formed -- party funding seems to be as far away as ever.
:05:04. > :05:10.The anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic has been remembered by
:05:10. > :05:16.events across the world, including Belfast. A memorial service was
:05:16. > :05:21.held at the North Atlantic it Rex site on the Balmoral, which is
:05:21. > :05:27.retrace sink the Titanic's route. Flowers were cast into the ocean at
:05:27. > :05:33.the moment it sank. There is a more news here on BBC
:05:33. > :05:38.One at 6:35pm. With those party funding proposals
:05:38. > :05:43.to Grant Shapps later. But it has been a tough three weeks for the
:05:43. > :05:47.Tories since the Budget. Another row, this time over tax relief on
:05:48. > :05:56.charitable donations dominating the political news. How worried should
:05:56. > :06:03.the party be as we approach the local elections on May 3rd? We are
:06:03. > :06:07.joined by Tim Montgomerie. Labour now has a clear lead in the polls.
:06:07. > :06:13.The Prime Minister's personal ratings have plummeted. Elections
:06:13. > :06:18.just around the corner, has serious are your party's problems? These
:06:18. > :06:23.have not been easy weeks, these last three weeks. But I would have
:06:23. > :06:29.expected a much bigger deficit for the Conservative Party by now.
:06:29. > :06:35.Normally you can seek political parties behind by 10 to 20 points.
:06:35. > :06:40.The latest polls have the Tories 6% behind. Big mistakes have been made
:06:40. > :06:46.and things have to be changed, but it is fixable. He will have seen
:06:46. > :06:51.headlines over the charity tax this morning, will this policy survive?
:06:51. > :06:55.I do not think so. It is an understandable policy error. The
:06:55. > :07:00.Chancellor wanted to catch and ensure rich people could pay a
:07:00. > :07:04.certain amount of tax and could not evade their responsibilities. But
:07:04. > :07:10.if you have the charities, universities, some of the most
:07:10. > :07:14.respected institutions in the land as well as Tory donors or saying it
:07:14. > :07:17.is unacceptable, it is one that is going to have to be chucked.
:07:18. > :07:23.say things could be worse, but things need to be done - what needs
:07:23. > :07:30.to be done? People don't really know what this Government's central
:07:30. > :07:39.mission is. The Prime Minister tried with his Big Society message.
:07:39. > :07:44.In its place is the message of cuts, cuts, cuts. Only 10% of the cuts
:07:44. > :07:50.have been made so far and the public are only prepared to accept
:07:50. > :07:56.those cuts unless there is a sense of national renewal, a growth
:07:56. > :08:01.strategy and a competitive agenda. So we can grow our way out of these
:08:01. > :08:08.problems otherwise these cuts will be too much to bear. If your party
:08:08. > :08:12.has not given this to us in all the years of opposition and in two
:08:12. > :08:15.years of power, how can they give it to us now? I have been
:08:15. > :08:22.disappointed by some of the Government's communication efforts.
:08:22. > :08:26.It is not too late. We are only 6% behind, the Labour Party has not
:08:26. > :08:30.captured the public's imagination either. The Prime Minister has
:08:30. > :08:34.tremendous gifts and he will have had a wake-up call in the last
:08:34. > :08:41.three weeks. He will have chance to shuffle his cabinet soon and
:08:41. > :08:50.clarify what his message is. big is the danger that your party,
:08:50. > :08:56.the traditional Tories will go to UK I p in May? I don't think it
:08:56. > :09:04.will happen in May. We see you kick getting up to 7% in one opinion
:09:04. > :09:08.poll. We have the European elections in June, and if they do
:09:09. > :09:13.well a year before the election, they are offering very conservative
:09:13. > :09:18.policies at the moment. It is a danger the Conservative Party
:09:18. > :09:22.cannot take it right flank for Dane -- granted any more.
:09:22. > :09:27.To have time for the Tories, but how did they get here and what lies
:09:27. > :09:30.ahead? It has not been the best springtime weather for the
:09:30. > :09:37.Conservatives. First there were complaints about the so-called
:09:37. > :09:41.Granny Tax, and the 50 p cut in the tax rate paid by the well off.
:09:41. > :09:47.Following revelations wealthy donors had been allowed access to
:09:47. > :09:53.Number Ten the cash. A row has blown up over a pasty, and a fuel
:09:53. > :09:57.strike that never happened. And in the latest fall-out, charities have
:09:57. > :10:03.complained tax changes will hit philanthropy, supposedly the
:10:03. > :10:07.cornerstone of the Big Society. In three weeks, the party faces local
:10:07. > :10:12.elections in England, Scotland and Wales and the contest between Boris
:10:12. > :10:16.Johnston and Ken Livingstone in London. The results will determine
:10:16. > :10:21.whether the trouble Tory spring is just a passing storm or something
:10:21. > :10:31.more profound. And the local Government minister, Grant Shapps
:10:31. > :10:33.
:10:33. > :10:37.joins me now for the Sunday The Labour leader this morning on
:10:37. > :10:42.the Andrew Marr Show made a significant move on party funding.
:10:42. > :10:49.He said individual donations, including lump-sum us from trade
:10:49. > :10:53.unions should be capped at �5,000. Are you up for that? I watched the
:10:53. > :10:58.interview and discovered of the �10 million to Labour got from the
:10:58. > :11:03.unions last year, they would still get 9.9 million of it. It is one of
:11:03. > :11:09.the most disingenuous interviews I have seen all year. Let's look at
:11:09. > :11:16.the funding figures for 2010. Labour party funding in an election
:11:16. > :11:22.year which makes it interesting. The 8 million coming from the levy
:11:22. > :11:25.that trade union members of pay to affiliate to the Labour Party. But
:11:25. > :11:30.you have 13 million in donations which we understand �4 million has
:11:30. > :11:35.come from the union. It is not peanuts, it is a huge sum of money.
:11:35. > :11:41.Just forget about the of the years during the Parliament. Election
:11:41. > :11:46.year is the important one. You cannot say it is peanuts when
:11:46. > :11:50.Labour got 13 million in an election year, 4 million from the
:11:50. > :11:56.unions which Mr Miliband is prepared to forgo. Most of the
:11:56. > :12:04.other 13 and then came from donations over �5,000. It is a huge
:12:04. > :12:09.hit he is proposing? And only one year out of five years. We have
:12:09. > :12:15.been trying for years to get this cap on large donations. Very, very
:12:15. > :12:20.happy to do that. Every time you get close to it, they say it cannot
:12:20. > :12:25.include the union donations, but outside this election year data you
:12:25. > :12:30.have just given us, there are five years in a Parliament, so over the
:12:30. > :12:37.other for years it is OK for him to keep 9.9 million the unions have
:12:37. > :12:40.given him. The Labour Party are willing to forgo most of that 13
:12:40. > :12:47.million in a crucial election year and you are throwing it back in his
:12:47. > :12:51.face. If you're going to get into this, perhaps you should have an
:12:51. > :12:56.opt in rather than opt out. To simply say, don't worry, we will
:12:56. > :13:03.make this big offer appear to be giving away all of this numbly.
:13:03. > :13:08.13 million? In all the other years, not the election year, still pocket
:13:08. > :13:12.�9.9 million. Ed Miliband is in the pockets of the unions, he was
:13:12. > :13:19.elected by the unions, just like Ken Livingstone in London, you
:13:19. > :13:25.cannot separate them. Let ordinary union members opt into it? That
:13:25. > :13:35.might be a sensible way to do that. Were due then agree to the other
:13:35. > :13:35.
:13:35. > :13:42.changes? Let's get round the table and have a look. Would you forgo
:13:42. > :13:46.the 50,000 that probably buys you supper with the Prime Minister?
:13:46. > :13:53.heard this analysis of last year that only reduce their income from
:13:53. > :13:58.the unions by 1%. In our analysis, 13 million. Let's have a look at
:13:58. > :14:03.this in detail. We are keen to reform party funding. It is the
:14:03. > :14:06.unions that have been blocking it and the unions run and control Ed
:14:07. > :14:12.Miliband and the Labour leader. has been a dreadful month for your
:14:12. > :14:19.party, what has been the most damaging? Creating and necessary
:14:19. > :14:24.fuel crisis, cutting tax for philanthropist tax dodgers? When
:14:24. > :14:29.you are in Government things will happen, events happen and all the
:14:29. > :14:38.rest of it. You created this? not agree. The necessary fuel
:14:38. > :14:44.crisis? The only place the fuel crisis was created it was the
:14:44. > :14:50.unions again. The ones that Ed Miliband cannot attack. They have
:14:50. > :14:54.settled. Let's hope they do. People queued for petrol on the urging of
:14:54. > :14:58.your Government and they wasted their time and their money. There
:14:58. > :15:06.would have been no need for any of this had the unions not voted to
:15:06. > :15:09.strike. Exactly the same unions who back the Labour leader. Let's look
:15:09. > :15:14.at the Charity Check -- charity tax. Many of us are struggling to
:15:14. > :15:18.understand what it means but it seems to involve something where
:15:18. > :15:23.charities would do more and the state less. What is the logic of a
:15:23. > :15:33.Budget that reduces the flow of money to the charities and
:15:33. > :15:38.
:15:38. > :15:41.We are happy to liquor any concerns. -- look at. The truth is, this is a
:15:41. > :15:46.consultation and when you launch a consultation, you look at the
:15:46. > :15:50.options. We are clear about this. It can't be right for the very
:15:50. > :15:54.wealthy individuals to effectively get out of paying any tax, some of
:15:54. > :15:59.them bring their tax rate down to zero simply by making these
:15:59. > :16:04.charitable donations. It is a great thing to give donations, we have
:16:04. > :16:09.made sure they are still able to give 50,000 tax-free. Can you give
:16:09. > :16:13.me a single example of an individual or company or group that
:16:13. > :16:18.uses charitable donations to get its tax down to zero? �50,000 is a
:16:18. > :16:25.lot. The single example. We don't have access to everybody's tax
:16:25. > :16:32.returns. For have you any example? Winnow the Chancellor was look at
:16:32. > :16:36.some are normalised tax returns the other week. A lot of these were not
:16:36. > :16:43.charitable donations. You can't give any one single example of
:16:43. > :16:47.somebody using charitable donations to dodge tax? Give me an example. A
:16:47. > :16:51.If you are saying the problem doesn't exist, what is the issue?
:16:51. > :16:55.If you are saying it is a problem, I would appreciate an example.
:16:55. > :17:00.is clearly the case that at the moment you can make any charitable
:17:00. > :17:03.donation and bring your tax rate down as a result. The fact that I
:17:04. > :17:09.can't point to Mr Jones at this address is because tax records are
:17:09. > :17:13.private. You said they are doing it. If you are in consultation, I
:17:13. > :17:19.assume you will consult your own party treasurer. This is what he
:17:19. > :17:25.says it. He is one of the biggest philanthropists in the country and
:17:25. > :17:30.he says it will put him off and other rich people. A what do you
:17:30. > :17:34.say to that? Simply this. Everybody has to pay their fair share of tax.
:17:34. > :17:37.We have said we will close tax loopholes that prevents some be
:17:37. > :17:42.bought from doing that. You don't think your party treasurer pays his
:17:42. > :17:47.own fair share of tax? Everybody is welcome to their own opinion. It is
:17:47. > :17:51.fair that everyone pays their fair share. I bet you that people
:17:51. > :17:54.watching this programme will be saying, there isn't a reason why it
:17:54. > :17:59.because you were particularly wealthy you shouldn't pair a fair
:17:59. > :18:02.percentage tax and if there are loopholes which have close those.
:18:02. > :18:06.number of philanthropists have number of philanthropists have
:18:06. > :18:16.written to the Sunday Telegraph. These are people who donate
:18:16. > :18:18.
:18:18. > :18:22.millions to good causes that your That is your consultation.
:18:22. > :18:26.consultation is ongoing. These views are welcome. Can you provide
:18:26. > :18:30.any other public body with a different view? The important thing
:18:30. > :18:34.is to work with charities to ensure their income is not significantly
:18:34. > :18:39.impacted. It has to be right, and I believe your viewers will be on the
:18:39. > :18:43.side of this, to say that everybody should pay their fair share of tax
:18:43. > :18:48.and if there is a loophole that says you can effectively bring your
:18:48. > :18:54.tax rate down very low by exploiting this loophole, we need
:18:54. > :18:57.to look at it. Your fellow Tory MP, who was also on the Andrew Marr
:18:57. > :19:03.show this morning, David Davies, is the right to say this is a tax with
:19:03. > :19:09.no friends and it was a mistake? We can already hear the sound of a U-
:19:09. > :19:16.turn. I disagree. Everybody agrees that this country has to be rescued
:19:16. > :19:19.from going bust. Standards and poor on Friday reaffirmed our AAA rating
:19:19. > :19:24.and said there's a good rating for Britain, unlike what has happened
:19:24. > :19:29.in France and America. And unlike what has happened in places like
:19:29. > :19:33.Greece. Everyone agrees you need to reduce this expenditure. What is
:19:33. > :19:37.much harder is when you actually say how you will pay for it.
:19:37. > :19:41.Because we are in government, we have laid out exactly how we hope
:19:41. > :19:44.to balance the books. Sometimes that will mean people have to make
:19:44. > :19:48.a compromise they are not interested in making. On this
:19:48. > :19:52.occasion we are talking about very wealthy people... How much would
:19:52. > :19:57.they saved? If you were to close this loophole, how much would it
:19:57. > :20:01.saved? This will come out in the consultation. You don't know?
:20:01. > :20:04.don't have the figure. You have incurred the wrath of these
:20:04. > :20:10.philanthropists and your party German and you don't know how much
:20:10. > :20:15.it would save? I've been a minister for two years. I've never had
:20:15. > :20:18.anybody into my office who said this is the best cut you could make.
:20:18. > :20:23.Everybody will tell you whatever the measure your taking to stop the
:20:23. > :20:27.country going to the wall is the worst thing you could do. The truth
:20:27. > :20:31.is, we can't spend money we don't have. We have to have cuts in
:20:31. > :20:34.expenditure and we have to make sure we raise the tax. If people
:20:34. > :20:37.are not paying tax at the appropriate rate, I don't think it
:20:37. > :20:41.is right that we played -- pay doctors and nurses and everybody
:20:41. > :20:46.else to pay the correct rate of income tax, but some people don't
:20:47. > :20:50.have to do. You would still be able to give �50,000 to charity and you
:20:50. > :20:54.can give as much money as you like to charity, but you will need to
:20:54. > :21:00.pay some tax. If you can give us some examples, we will put them on
:21:00. > :21:04.the website. Thank you for joining Should the tax affairs of
:21:04. > :21:06.politicians be made public? After a row between London mayoral
:21:06. > :21:10.candidate Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone that led to both
:21:10. > :21:14.pledging full disclosure and others, including the prime minister,
:21:14. > :21:20.saying they are happy to follow suit, that is on the agenda. How we
:21:20. > :21:26.buy it -- how about we publish yours? Still keen? Giles has been
:21:26. > :21:32.to Sweden where they have been showing all tax since 1766.
:21:33. > :21:36.The Swedes, like us, take personal privacy seriously. There Data
:21:36. > :21:40.Protection Act makes it illegal to access bank account data and health
:21:40. > :21:45.records, but the irony is that in Sweden, when it comes to tax
:21:46. > :21:50.returns and celery, details that we in the UK would regard as private
:21:50. > :21:56.and personal, you don't need a supercomputer packing Lisbeth Sir
:21:56. > :22:02.Alan De, you can find all of these people's details quite freely on
:22:02. > :22:07.line. We have very low corruption once -- in Sweden and we are very
:22:07. > :22:16.proud of it. Our openness when it comes to information and freedom to
:22:16. > :22:19.seek information is vital in our open society. It is a 300 year-old
:22:19. > :22:25.constitutional tradition which creates a computerised heaven for
:22:25. > :22:34.journalists. The MP we interviewed, you have just captained his name
:22:34. > :22:43.and his details come up. Yes, it takes one minute. This USP Memory
:22:43. > :22:47.stick contains all of the details about, for example, income, debts,
:22:47. > :22:53.what properties you own. It contains all the people in Sweden.
:22:53. > :22:56.And they restrict protection for all those asking questions. -- they
:22:56. > :23:01.eat -- and there is strict protection. They have no right to
:23:01. > :23:06.ask me my name. They have no right to ask me the purpose of my request.
:23:06. > :23:10.And if, for instance, they can deduce that I am asking for these
:23:10. > :23:16.documents because there has been a leak, they have absolutely no right
:23:16. > :23:19.to try to find that leak. This is about two principles. Freedom of
:23:19. > :23:25.information and personal data protection and where one overrides
:23:25. > :23:28.the other. Perhaps for us, a compromise would be to demand just
:23:28. > :23:33.politicians are taxed at -- transparent. I think it would be
:23:33. > :23:37.difficult to have a system that is legitimate to the people were using
:23:37. > :23:41.Deloitte certain categories. If using Deloitte politicians, that
:23:41. > :23:46.will send another signal that they are treated like criminals. It
:23:47. > :23:52.would be like putting them inside barbed-wire and putting the
:23:52. > :23:58.spotlight on them. If all of us had to do this, or would it just become
:23:58. > :24:03.a snoopers paradise? Just ask for Swedes. Do they actually Snoop?
:24:03. > :24:08.should I check my neighbours tax returns? That is kind of weird,
:24:08. > :24:18.isn't it? A bit cranky. I would like to see my neighbours
:24:18. > :24:22.
:24:22. > :24:26.tax returns! Should we do as the Nigel Farrell arch, if you have
:24:26. > :24:30.nothing to hide, what is the problem with being transparent?
:24:30. > :24:34.difference between public and private. The biggest problem isn't
:24:34. > :24:37.that we demand to know how much tax or wealth politicians have got, the
:24:37. > :24:42.biggest problem is they don't engage with concerns and they
:24:42. > :24:52.appear to be grossly incompetent. I Liquor career politics in Britain
:24:52. > :24:54.
:24:54. > :24:59.today, there's not by entrepreneur on the front benches. Her we put
:24:59. > :25:05.off entrepreneurs and successful people from coming into politics.
:25:05. > :25:09.think there is a problem if you only basket of politicians. Matthew
:25:09. > :25:12.Parris had a good article in the Times yesterday where he said he is
:25:12. > :25:16.opposed to it, I'm in favour of it, where he said starting with
:25:16. > :25:21.politicians means we will end up somewhere else. We will go through
:25:21. > :25:24.the council officials, councillors. The slippery slope. He says it is
:25:24. > :25:28.the thin end of the wedge, but I like the wedge. You think all tax
:25:28. > :25:34.returns should be published? don't see anything wrong with the
:25:34. > :25:40.Swedish system. Why? We are talking about civic responsibility. The
:25:40. > :25:45.payment of tax is something that we undertake as a part of our duties
:25:45. > :25:49.as citizens. It doesn't seem to me it is actually a private matter.
:25:49. > :25:53.That is what is coming out in the argument between Ken and Boris.
:25:53. > :25:59.People don't feel it is a private matter in their case. I think it is
:25:59. > :26:03.private. If you were to give money to charity, a very topical subject,
:26:03. > :26:08.that has to go on your tax return. A lot of people who give money to
:26:08. > :26:11.charity do so without bells and whistles, privately, so we may find
:26:11. > :26:15.out that if we want to get more wealthy people into politics, we
:26:15. > :26:20.stop money going into charity because they don't want the world
:26:20. > :26:23.to know. I don't see the strength of that argument. If everybody is
:26:23. > :26:26.showing their tax returns, I don't see why it would have any impact on
:26:27. > :26:30.people's willingness to give to charity unless they give to really
:26:30. > :26:34.bizarre charities. They may well do, but they may think they are
:26:34. > :26:39.important. Shouldn't they have the privacy? You could make the
:26:39. > :26:43.argument that you don't have to name the particular charity. There
:26:43. > :26:47.are changes in rules between the Finns, the Norwegians and the
:26:47. > :26:51.Swedes as to exactly what you do. If you think everybody's tax
:26:51. > :26:59.returns should be public, should it also be public how much everybody
:26:59. > :27:04.receives in benefits? Yes, probably. There is a significant argument for
:27:04. > :27:09.that as well. That would be a more difficult rule to enforce. Would
:27:09. > :27:15.it? Why? The government is paying them. You would have to get round a
:27:15. > :27:19.large number of different agencies in order to get them to publish.
:27:19. > :27:24.Not very English! We don't even tell a or brother what we earn. We
:27:24. > :27:29.are very private about money in this country. You mean it is not
:27:29. > :27:33.unlike Scotland or Wales? You can give me the Scottish equivalent. I
:27:33. > :27:37.think it is something we regard as being a very private matter. Our
:27:37. > :27:42.culture is completely different to Sweden. That is what has changed.
:27:42. > :27:50.The Swedes are fairly private as well despite the imaginations about
:27:50. > :27:54.public nudity and so on. Maybe if they are not as nosy as we are!
:27:54. > :27:59.think they are not as envious as we imagine we are. The real problem is
:27:59. > :28:03.not privacy, but those of us who do well are worried about the MBE as
:28:03. > :28:08.targets of neighbours. Almost certainly wrongly, but you can see
:28:08. > :28:12.why sometimes might sometimes feel that. There was a time less than 50
:28:12. > :28:17.years ago when a lot of politicians, particularly Conservatives, said
:28:17. > :28:23.where we get our money from as a party should be private. No one
:28:23. > :28:26.believes in that argument now. Aren't you battling against a tide?
:28:26. > :28:30.In the future we will think it only natural that we should see the tax
:28:30. > :28:36.returns of politicians. That may well be right. It may well be that
:28:36. > :28:44.my argument will lose. Because the MoD are demanding more and more.
:28:44. > :28:48.This is mob rule. -- mob. My argument is this. We have an
:28:48. > :28:51.absolute dearth of talent in British politics in terms of
:28:51. > :28:57.experience of life and I want to see better people in politics and
:28:57. > :29:05.the more intrusion we have, the fewer people... You said it is our
:29:05. > :29:08.civic duty to pay tax. If I have my accountant saying that I am
:29:08. > :29:15.resident in Britain for tax purposes and that I submit their
:29:15. > :29:19.tax return every year to HMRC... Why is that not enough? Why? Let's
:29:20. > :29:24.take the case where this has come from. Ken Livingstone has at last
:29:24. > :29:27.that people who he says are not paying as much tax as they could do.
:29:27. > :29:32.Then it is discovered that he himself is doing it. People's
:29:32. > :29:37.reaction to this is not just about hypocrisy, it is about whether or
:29:37. > :29:44.not you pay your dues in a way that I understand. If that is applicable
:29:44. > :29:54.to Ken, it is applicable to anybody. 5080 % in the latest polls say
:29:54. > :29:55.
:29:55. > :30:05.politicians tax returns should be Is it true these rumours that some
:30:05. > :30:05.
:30:05. > :30:11.Conservative MPs are in talks with UKIP? If we continued to grow in
:30:11. > :30:15.the opinion polls, I think some will join. Are you having
:30:15. > :30:20.discussions? In politics you have discussions with people all of the
:30:20. > :30:27.time. I will take that as a yes. Can you give us the names of the
:30:27. > :30:31.Tory MPs? Not just yet. It is approaching 12:30pm: Coming
:30:31. > :30:36.up I will be looking at the week ahead with the best political panel
:30:36. > :30:46.in the business. Across the Sunday politics and
:30:46. > :30:48.
:30:48. > :30:53.across the United Kingdom. Welcome to London. With our gaze on
:30:53. > :30:59.the election for the Lord Mayor, we will be talking to candlelit, Brian
:30:59. > :31:04.Paddick. Then we will be looking at UKIP has to offer which go beyond
:31:04. > :31:10.its beliefs in Europe. The electoral gloves are off, but they
:31:10. > :31:14.were also on, Brian Paddick launched his campaign in shorts and
:31:14. > :31:20.inside a boxing ring. But the polls suggest he could be in for pounding
:31:20. > :31:25.on May 3rd. He is here to tell us what he will do about that. Before
:31:25. > :31:29.we come on to policing, crime, what you say is your unique selling-
:31:29. > :31:35.point, let's look at the broader picture. The Liberal Democrats in
:31:35. > :31:39.the polls, they are low showing and so are you. Is your low showing
:31:39. > :31:43.because of theirs or is there another reason? What I want
:31:43. > :31:48.Londoners to do it is to vote and what the London Liberal Democrats
:31:48. > :31:52.are offering over the next three years. I don't want this to be a
:31:52. > :31:56.referendum on the coalition Government. The Labour Party were
:31:56. > :32:03.planning a celebration in Bradford the day before George Galloway took
:32:03. > :32:09.the seat from them. Nobody predicted that was going to happen.
:32:09. > :32:13.Even on the basis of the polls. It was a surprise result. What I am
:32:13. > :32:18.hearing his people are fed up with Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson
:32:18. > :32:21.taking lumps out of each other, talking about the past. Londoners
:32:22. > :32:27.want somebody talking positively about the future and that is what I
:32:27. > :32:33.am doing and the Liberal Democrats are doing. Why we do not want it to
:32:33. > :32:37.be a Polish -- referendum on the coalition at the moment? We have
:32:37. > :32:42.had a record increase in the personal allowance announced in the
:32:42. > :32:47.last Budget, so you can earn up to �9,000 without paying tax
:32:47. > :32:53.altogether. That was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. We are doing
:32:53. > :32:57.lots of positive things, but the selection is not about a coalition.
:32:57. > :33:03.It is about the Liberal Democrats pursuing a progressive and positive
:33:03. > :33:06.agenda for London. To be clear, you want to distance yourself from a
:33:06. > :33:12.coalition and the Liberal Democrat part of it at the moment? That is
:33:12. > :33:18.what you're saying isn't it? No, we want Londoners to vote on what of
:33:18. > :33:23.vision is over the next four years. If they look to the coalition and
:33:23. > :33:28.the Liberal Democrat six nationally, they may not vote for you in
:33:28. > :33:35.London? This is what the party is going to offer Londoners for the
:33:35. > :33:40.next four years and beyond. There are coalition policies that affect
:33:40. > :33:46.London. Do you support the increase in tuition fees? Of course I don't
:33:46. > :33:51.support that. The Liberal Democrats decide what their policy is at
:33:51. > :33:58.party conference and the Liberal Democrat policy and tuition fees is
:33:58. > :34:03.to abolish them. What about this that affects so many students?
:34:04. > :34:10.cars of the mess the Labour Party left, we have had to target
:34:10. > :34:15.benefits. There are students who still get financial support. So it
:34:15. > :34:21.is yes. What about the reduction of the top rate of income tax, do you
:34:21. > :34:27.support that? I don't care if it is a 50 pence rate of income tax,
:34:27. > :34:32.mansion tax or tycoon tax. Provided the richest people pay the most tax.
:34:32. > :34:36.It you could make the decision, which model would you go for?
:34:36. > :34:41.most effective model that brings in most tax. The top rate has gone
:34:41. > :34:49.down, but what has replaced that? It is perceived as helping the very
:34:49. > :34:51.rich in the capital, do you agree? Boris Johnson is benefiting from a
:34:51. > :34:55.reduction in and 50 p tax rate. He was the only candidate running to
:34:55. > :35:00.be the mayor lobbying the Government to reduce the 50 pence
:35:00. > :35:08.rate. Ken Livingstone would have been avoiding that if he had not
:35:08. > :35:12.avoided paying tax which was a private company. What the
:35:12. > :35:17.Government established was it was not effective in bringing in extra
:35:17. > :35:21.income to the Exchequer. The changes made in the budgets are
:35:21. > :35:26.likely to bring in five times more money from rich people than the 50
:35:26. > :35:33.pence tax rate. So you do effectively Rebecca -- support it
:35:33. > :35:39.in the round? It is important the richest pay tax. Let's move on to
:35:39. > :35:45.policing and you are an ex-police officer. How would you control or
:35:45. > :35:49.get anything done with this new Lord Mayor and policing Commission?
:35:49. > :35:55.Because in London, the police and crime Commission there is also the
:35:55. > :36:03.mayor. If Londoners vote for me on 3rd May, not only will I become
:36:03. > :36:10.mayor of London but I will be head of the Police Commission. Instead
:36:10. > :36:16.of a group of people deciding the budgets for the police, it will be
:36:16. > :36:21.me in charge of that. What would you change? I would make sure the
:36:21. > :36:27.police actually adopt what Londoners priorities are. I want
:36:27. > :36:31.the safer neighbourhood teams, the community support officers knocking
:36:31. > :36:37.on doors and establishing from local people what their priorities
:36:37. > :36:43.are. They do that and now don't they? No they don't do that. They
:36:43. > :36:47.hold meetings were the usual suspects, the vocal, the articulate
:36:47. > :36:52.turn up and claimed to know what local people want. What the Lib
:36:52. > :36:56.Dems do in by-elections, we do crime surveys, we knock on every
:36:56. > :37:02.door in every ward. Would you need more of those community police
:37:02. > :37:05.officers to do that? No we wouldn't. Part of their role is to build a
:37:05. > :37:11.rapport with local people and part of that is knocking on doors and
:37:11. > :37:16.asking them what their priorities are. We would then hold the police
:37:17. > :37:23.to account, to adopt those priorities. So they can prove they
:37:23. > :37:26.are on the side of Londoners. There was a poll two weeks ago which
:37:26. > :37:32.showed 20% of Londoners did not believe the police are on their
:37:32. > :37:37.side. We have got to get that right up to 99%. The commissioner decides,
:37:37. > :37:40.I don't want to allocate the time to all this door knocking because
:37:40. > :37:44.there are serious crime problems in a certain area I want to
:37:44. > :37:49.concentrate on. It is an operational matter and he won't be
:37:49. > :37:54.able to do anything about it? important role is to set the
:37:54. > :37:58.priorities for the police. I will set a priority for the commissioner
:37:58. > :38:02.that he, locally adopts the priorities of local people and I
:38:02. > :38:06.will say to him, the only way you can establish that is by going and
:38:06. > :38:12.knocking on every door. I don't care whether he gets a survey
:38:12. > :38:16.company to do that all volunteers, but it is within my power to
:38:16. > :38:20.require the commissioner to do that. I am wondering about the wider
:38:20. > :38:28.picture from someone who is an ex- police officer. Someone regarded as
:38:28. > :38:33.a maverick, quite controversial. And a man who, fell out with the
:38:33. > :38:40.previous commissioners, will they take kindly to at interfering at
:38:40. > :38:45.any level at Scotland Yard? Lord Stevens and I never fell out.
:38:45. > :38:50.about over the cannabis, you tried the softly-softly approach? He said
:38:50. > :38:57.to me, Brian I like a person who takes risks as long as they come
:38:57. > :39:01.off. There were what turned out to be malicious allegations made about
:39:01. > :39:09.me in a Sunday newspaper and he felt it was best for me to be moved
:39:09. > :39:13.was the investigation was going on. I know Bernard Hogan Howe. We work
:39:13. > :39:17.together when we were in the Met. I have had a one hour meeting with
:39:17. > :39:21.him. At the end of the meeting he gave me his own personal mobile
:39:21. > :39:28.phone number. I don't think that sounds like so many who does not
:39:28. > :39:33.want to do business with me. What is Bernard Hogan Howe doing about
:39:34. > :39:40.gangs? Also about racism and stop and search. Are you happy with that,
:39:40. > :39:44.it is all being done? Bernard Hogan Howe wants to review the use of
:39:44. > :39:49.section 60, a controversial power to search for weapons, because he
:39:49. > :39:52.has been legally challenged in the courts. I want a fundamental review.
:39:52. > :39:57.And search to prevent what happens at the moment, which is
:39:57. > :40:04.unfortunately, black people being racially stereotyped by police
:40:04. > :40:09.officers as criminals. He is getting the balance about right in
:40:09. > :40:17.fact, and what we have been hearing in the media, indiscriminately
:40:17. > :40:23.targeting people. The numbers show you are likely to be stopped four
:40:23. > :40:27.times more if you're black than white. Under section 60 it is like
:40:27. > :40:35.two in 100 searchers a result in something being found. It is
:40:35. > :40:41.ineffective and it needs to change. You had a couple of difficulties
:40:41. > :40:48.knowing the costings of York transport policy. Are you there
:40:48. > :40:54.now? How much it will cost four tubes and buses, and your Hock Ong,
:40:55. > :41:00.hop off? We think it will cost between 80 and �90 million. That is
:41:00. > :41:05.based on Transport for London figures. That is a year.
:41:06. > :41:15.million! That is less than a third of what Ken Livingstone is
:41:15. > :41:21.proposing. His costs are over �1 billion in four years. That is the
:41:21. > :41:25.most liberal estimate you can put on our proposals. We think the fair
:41:25. > :41:30.take will increase because people will seek they are much fairer,
:41:31. > :41:34.there will be able to hop on and hotpot the transport system.
:41:34. > :41:39.will cost something to change the system so it recognises it would
:41:39. > :41:45.pay as you go and Oyster and everything? We asked Transport for
:41:45. > :41:50.London, it was an official questions to the Lord Mayor in a
:41:50. > :41:55.transport meeting. They said 30 to �40 million. That is the TfL answer
:41:55. > :41:59.and they also said there is the potential for the number of
:41:59. > :42:04.journeys on buses to increase and the cost would be less than that.
:42:04. > :42:09.For the moment, don't go anywhere. More from you in a moment, but lots
:42:09. > :42:12.of talk recently about how much of a threat the United Kingdom
:42:12. > :42:17.Independence Party could pose the Conservatives in the future. Could
:42:17. > :42:23.we learn much about that in the city hall elections? An offshoot of
:42:23. > :42:27.the party had two assembly members elected in 2004 and matters went
:42:27. > :42:32.the way European elections on the same day. In the cut and thrust of
:42:32. > :42:38.London Regional politics, what is UKIP for?
:42:38. > :42:41.With images of European crisis all too familiar, it may be little
:42:41. > :42:46.surprise the hardening of British attitudes towards the European
:42:46. > :42:52.Union. Just because voters and not keen on European integration, does
:42:52. > :42:57.that mean they will start voting UKIP in London elections? The party
:42:57. > :43:02.have had an unhappy record so far translating their message to the
:43:02. > :43:06.regional politics of City Hall. Their only success came in 2004
:43:06. > :43:11.when the GLA elections were held on the same day as European ones. They
:43:11. > :43:17.won two seats on the London assembly, but lost them quickly.
:43:17. > :43:27.What stupid, awkward questions were newbie asking me? After a couple of
:43:27. > :43:28.
:43:28. > :43:32.years, they followed Robert Kilroy- Silk into his new party. Now this
:43:32. > :43:35.is their manifesto for this year's elections. But it is about the
:43:35. > :43:40.congestion charge, the Tube, the police and nothing to do with
:43:40. > :43:45.whether we should keep the pound or not. What message do they have for
:43:45. > :43:51.London? If their flag was to fly over City Hall, what would we see?
:43:51. > :43:56.The party has cast itself as the defender of financial services
:43:56. > :44:06.saying ordinary Londoners jobs are under threat from European
:44:06. > :44:07.
:44:07. > :44:10.interference. We need to distinguish between British
:44:10. > :44:15.interest and the interest of the small financial elite at the top of
:44:15. > :44:18.Canary Wharf. These are people who make absolutely millions and
:44:18. > :44:23.millions of pounds each year, gambling in a way that is not
:44:23. > :44:26.productive. But does not create jobs and it does not help London or
:44:26. > :44:36.Britain. This tax would be useful because it takes resources from
:44:36. > :44:39.
:44:39. > :44:43.those people and spends a useful on the poor.
:44:43. > :44:47.UKIP after the sympathy at of Newt -- motorists. They would scrap the
:44:47. > :44:54.congestion charge and want them there to be able to control parking
:44:54. > :44:58.in London. Parking is a mish-mash. 5 million parking tickets issued in
:44:58. > :45:03.London and a 5th of those are successfully appealed. Most people
:45:03. > :45:07.don't appeal them because they will double in two weeks if they don't
:45:07. > :45:14.pay it. At the moment the mayor does not control parking across
:45:14. > :45:19.London. Perhaps then a slightly risky flagship, transport policy.
:45:19. > :45:24.You come into office, then you say to the Government I will control
:45:24. > :45:29.the parking. The Government say, no chance, mate. That is your key
:45:29. > :45:33.transport policy blown out of the water? It is fundamental but the
:45:33. > :45:40.mayor does control certain areas of parking, he controls the red routes.
:45:40. > :45:45.I want to extend VAT. A lot of controlled parking zones that
:45:45. > :45:55.happened are subsidised by TfL. So, there is already an influence in
:45:55. > :45:56.
:45:56. > :46:00.Of the party's 26 also pledges, only around seven relate to things
:46:00. > :46:07.the Mayor can actually do. Policies like cuts in VAT and roaring back
:46:07. > :46:10.the smoking ban fall outside the remit of City Hall. Part of the
:46:10. > :46:12.Mayor's responsibility is to create a vision for London and that is
:46:12. > :46:18.what I have done. All the candidates have mentioned things
:46:18. > :46:28.they don't have control over. Boris with his airport in the Thames. He
:46:28. > :46:29.
:46:29. > :46:32.has no control over that. Ken wants to declare UD I completely. It is a
:46:32. > :46:35.wish list, a lobbying position. It is right that the Mayor has a
:46:35. > :46:41.vision for taking London forward and that is what some of those
:46:41. > :46:45.other areas are. While other candidates made do the same thing,
:46:45. > :46:50.could it be a problem for party best known for its views on Europe?
:46:50. > :46:53.One recent poll put UKIP on 11% support of voters in the general
:46:53. > :47:00.election. A few days later another poll looking at the mayoral
:47:00. > :47:07.election suggested support of just 1%. London is a tougher
:47:07. > :47:13.constituency. Why is that? Because there is a greater disengagement in
:47:13. > :47:16.London politics because there is an influx of people from outside. In
:47:16. > :47:21.the outer boroughs, a number of people don't recognise the
:47:21. > :47:27.importance of the mire. Voting is less in the outer boroughs than the
:47:27. > :47:31.central boroughs. The odds of London having a UKIP mare come May
:47:31. > :47:34.are pretty slim, although the party is hoping to return one or two
:47:34. > :47:39.members to the London Assembly. Their ability to do so may well
:47:39. > :47:44.depend on whether they can convince Londoners they are party concerned
:47:44. > :47:49.with more than just the European London -- European Union.
:47:49. > :47:53.We understand UKIP are telling their supporters to vote for Boris
:47:53. > :47:58.Johnson second. Where would you suggest your supporters vote
:47:58. > :48:04.second? My job is to convince people to vote Liberal Democrat on
:48:04. > :48:08.May 3rd. We know that. What about an answer? That is the only thing I
:48:08. > :48:13.will ask Londoners to do. It is entirely up to that other people
:48:13. > :48:18.who they vote for. I will not lobby on behalf of another candidate.
:48:18. > :48:22.Second preference system. With the coalition government, the first
:48:22. > :48:26.time in 60 years, the impetus is greater than ever to know whether a
:48:26. > :48:30.Lib Dem candidate is signalling that second preference votes should
:48:30. > :48:35.go somewhere. Should they go it to the Conservative candidate? I can
:48:35. > :48:38.tell you absolutely that I am not suggesting Londoners vote for Boris
:48:38. > :48:42.Johnson or Ken Livingstone second preference. I'm not suggesting
:48:42. > :48:48.Londoners vote for any other candidate, I just suggest a vote
:48:48. > :48:54.Lib Dem. Last time you said you would have
:48:54. > :49:00.voted for the respect candidate as your second candidate. Left less.
:49:00. > :49:04.Does that indicate your own leanings? The reason I voted left
:49:04. > :49:08.list last time was because that candidate had a massive socialist
:49:08. > :49:12.house building programme. That is what I'm absolutely passionate
:49:12. > :49:16.about as well. That is why in our manifesto we say we will have a
:49:16. > :49:22.massive social housebuilding programme... You did it on one
:49:22. > :49:26.issue. A Yes. What can we say in terms of the social housing, Boris
:49:26. > :49:30.Johnson or Ken Livingstone is promising enough social housing?
:49:31. > :49:36.Neither of them is promising a massive social housing programme.
:49:36. > :49:41.Only the Lib Dems are promising to build 360,000 know you -- new homes.
:49:41. > :49:45.That is why I am suggesting to people vote Lib Dem on May 3rd.
:49:45. > :49:49.see you like sparring. Which one of the two of them would you most like
:49:49. > :49:54.to get in the boxing ring with? wouldn't like to get into the
:49:54. > :49:58.boxing ring with either of them. Would you take them both on? That
:49:58. > :50:02.is the only place that borrowing should be taking place. When we are
:50:02. > :50:06.doing these debates, Londoners want to hear about positive things for
:50:06. > :50:10.the future of London. They don't want to see us scrapping. I'm happy
:50:10. > :50:15.to get into a boxing ring with either of them after May 3rd, but
:50:15. > :50:20.until then let's concentrate on the issues. Your ruling that out?
:50:20. > :50:24.afraid the knockout in the boxing afraid the knockout in the boxing
:50:24. > :50:34.ring is not on the cards. Thank you. Time to remind you of all of the
:50:34. > :50:43.
:50:43. > :50:47.Next week, our guest is the Labour Tomorrow the Conservatives will be
:50:47. > :50:51.launching their local election manifesto. The budget has been
:50:51. > :51:01.debated in the Commons and there's bound to be more reaction to that
:51:01. > :51:05.
:51:05. > :51:09.Isabel, why has Mr Miliband chosen to make this offer now and how
:51:09. > :51:13.significant is it? The cynic in me things this is a sort of offer you
:51:13. > :51:17.can make from the luxury of opposition. Remember when Cameron
:51:17. > :51:22.came up with his 50,000 cap on donations in opposition and nothing
:51:22. > :51:25.came of it. Remember who it was that wrecked the party funding
:51:26. > :51:29.talks the last time they happen. It was Labour and it was because of
:51:29. > :51:33.the trade union issue. I would not be particularly optimistic this
:51:33. > :51:37.will come to anything. It does but the Tories in a difficult position.
:51:37. > :51:41.The thing to look out for is what the Lib Dems do. If they go along
:51:41. > :51:45.with this offer, as I suspect they will given that they don't receive
:51:45. > :51:49.these huge number of individual donations, the Tories are suddenly
:51:49. > :51:53.left as the only party in British politics, the only main party, to
:51:53. > :51:57.be on the other side of the argument. That kind of political
:51:57. > :52:01.isolation is difficult. The Tory tactic, which we saw with Grant
:52:01. > :52:06.Shapps, that it doesn't amount to row of beans, that isn't going to
:52:06. > :52:11.hold. It may do, but it will require a complicated argument.
:52:11. > :52:15.What cuts through is the fact of two parties been on one side of the
:52:15. > :52:20.argument, in favour of reform, and the Tories on the other. The rights
:52:20. > :52:24.and wrongs may be ambiguous, but the dividing line won't be. It is
:52:24. > :52:27.also a clever branding exercise. Ed Miliband has said we are prepared
:52:27. > :52:35.to take away millions of pounds of our funding, but that will come at
:52:35. > :52:42.a cost of the �5,000 cap the Tories will never accept. He's managed to
:52:42. > :52:46.make a point without having to pay the money up front. For the Tories
:52:46. > :52:49.to downplay it is perhaps downplaying the significance of
:52:49. > :52:55.what Ed Miliband would have to achieve to get this through. What
:52:55. > :52:59.he wants is the small donation model which Obama used cleverly.
:52:59. > :53:04.That is a very strategic move for Ed Miliband because as the
:53:04. > :53:08.opposition you're more likely to benefit from small donations.
:53:08. > :53:14.you think this is just politics, there's no real substance, parties
:53:14. > :53:18.are playing politics, if the Tory response shouldn't have been thank
:53:18. > :53:25.you very much, we will take all of that, provided you agree that the
:53:25. > :53:30.levy will be and opting Levey among union members. It is their
:53:30. > :53:34.strongest argument. Although the central donations provided by
:53:34. > :53:39.unions to Labour will be affected by this proposal, it is still the
:53:39. > :53:43.case that all of the individual Saabs can be aggregated. That is
:53:43. > :53:52.worth about 8 million. It dwarfs the central donations from the
:53:52. > :53:56.unions. In an election year you get more. A lot of that must come from
:53:56. > :54:01.people who were giving more than 5,000. I wouldn't be surprised if
:54:01. > :54:07.Ed Miliband has bothered running this by the trade unions. I don't
:54:07. > :54:12.think it would have gone down too well. Let's move on to politics.
:54:12. > :54:17.The charity tax. How did they get into such a mess? It is the latest
:54:17. > :54:22.in a series of misses. Of a prone to it? They seem to be, especially
:54:22. > :54:26.since the Budget. What united the row over the charity tax, along
:54:26. > :54:32.with the granny tax, is in both cases the Conservatives fail to
:54:32. > :54:36.make an argument for a policy. That speaks to a gap between the kind of
:54:36. > :54:39.radicalism of the government's policies and the political will to
:54:39. > :54:44.sell them. There's a certain squeamishness which is not very
:54:44. > :54:49.becoming and dangerous. There's also a deeper issue about
:54:49. > :54:53.competence. That will have to be massively one over. We know from
:54:54. > :54:57.Tim Montgomerie's article this week that there are rumours about
:54:57. > :55:02.Cameron's leadership in this position and Osborne's. After the
:55:02. > :55:05.local elections, we will see that come to the surface. The question
:55:05. > :55:09.marks over the leadership are understated. But Number Ten lacks
:55:09. > :55:16.political capacity. It is staffed by civil servants and they can't
:55:16. > :55:20.say to George Osborne, make the case for this tax. George -- Andrew
:55:20. > :55:24.Lansley, this NHS bill might alienate the country. Civil
:55:24. > :55:27.servants can't make those interventions. Number Ten needs to
:55:27. > :55:34.beef up when it comes to operating staff. I agree. What strikes me
:55:34. > :55:37.about this whole thing is the gap that it shows in the communications
:55:37. > :55:43.operation. There's nobody in Number Ten looking up for these elephants
:55:43. > :55:48.traps. No one is even preparing the ground. There is the case, which we
:55:48. > :55:52.have not heard, of saying that charitable donations should not be
:55:52. > :55:56.a limited when it comes to tax. We have not heard that case. They have
:55:56. > :56:00.gone down another cul-de-sac, about dodgy charities. That is a matter
:56:00. > :56:04.for HMRC and the Charities Commission. It was the same with
:56:04. > :56:10.the granny tax. When you looked at the figures, people could have
:56:11. > :56:16.bought into it, but the problem was the territory had not been prepared.
:56:16. > :56:25.U-turn coming on this? Inevitably. The more they deny it, the more
:56:25. > :56:30.stupid they will look. They insist not. That means it is coming!
:56:30. > :56:34.the other issue is that HMRC itself will have to make 25% cut so the
:56:34. > :56:40.next couple of years. Those slip ups and problems that come from the
:56:40. > :56:44.tax system will get worse. Explain this. We are in a London mayoral
:56:44. > :56:50.election, which has almost got a national status because the two
:56:50. > :56:55.front runners are Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone. In London, Labour
:56:55. > :57:00.as a party is about eight points ahead. Mr Livingstone is about six
:57:00. > :57:04.point behind. Discuss. Absolutely. The way they should be playing it
:57:04. > :57:07.is this is a Labour election and not a Ken Livingstone election.
:57:07. > :57:13.That wasn't what the election broadcast was about, it was about
:57:13. > :57:17.10. Let's be clear. All of the parties are trying to distance
:57:17. > :57:19.themselves from their candidates. Cameron knows it is much better for
:57:20. > :57:23.borrowers to be able to play out his campaign away from the
:57:23. > :57:28.Conservative image and Ed Miliband knows it is better for him to stay
:57:28. > :57:32.away from Ken because if Ken loses, it will be quite damaging for his...
:57:32. > :57:37.Boris is more popular than his party, Ken is less popular than his
:57:37. > :57:41.party. Labour could not have chosen a worse candidate and the Tories
:57:41. > :57:46.couldn't have a better candidate. I think it is in Labour's interest
:57:46. > :57:51.for Ken to lose. If he loses, it is a short-term use and in that the
:57:51. > :57:54.pressure shifts to Miliband. If he wins, the second most prominent
:57:54. > :57:58.Labour politician in the country will be someone who will say and do
:57:58. > :58:04.things consistently that caused embarrassment to Ed Miliband.
:58:04. > :58:10.very complicated! I don't think it has been fun enough. Nobody --
:58:11. > :58:20.nobody has seen Boris getting up to mischief. We might try to get some
:58:20. > :58:24.fun. That is all for today. We will be back tomorrow on BBC Two for the