15/04/2012 Sunday Politics London

Good afternoon. It is the Budget that keeps on

giving - but not in a good way. After pasty tax, it is charity tax

that damages the Government. How much damage has been done to the

Tories for next month's elections? Grant Shapps joins us for the

Sunday interviews. It we have been to Sweden - when it

comes to tax they let it all hang out. Should we follow suit and make

tax returns public? Not just for politicians but for you and me

Nigel Farage and David Aaronovitch go head-to-head.

Here to look at the week ahead and Twitter.

In London, lagging in the polls - VAT is him and his party. In a

series of interviews with the Lord Mayor candidates, we will be

talking to Brian Paddick. That's coming up in the next hour,

but first the news. Good afternoon. The Afghan capital,

Kabul is coming under a series of sustained attacks. The

international airport, Parliament building, and number of embassies

and a hotel have come under siege. The Taliban says it is carrying out

the assault. Several areas of Kabul came under

attack. It appeared to be a well co-ordinated operations. Explosions

and gunfire were heard. The first attack came close to Kabul's

diplomatic quarter. It was reported several armed men tried to enter

the Afghan Parliament, but were driven back by Afghan security

forces. They have also been attacks in Jalalabad and gardeners. Reports

from Afghanistan are still sketchy. But the Taliban has admitted

responsibility. A spokesman said a group of armed suicide bombers had

launched attacks on NATO headquarters, Parliament and

diplomatic residences. A Foreign Office spokesman in London has

confirmed there is an ongoing incident and they are keeping in

close contact with embassy staff in Kabul.

Ed Miliband has called for individual donations to political

parties to be limited to �5,000. He said it would include donations

from trade unions, but not fees are paid by individual union members.

The Conservatives have called the proposals a virtual meaningless.

Everyone at Westminster agrees money and politics are linked to

much. And all three political parties want to become less reliant

on wealthy donors. But talks on the subject just keep stalling. Ed

Miliband says it is time to try again to clean up the political

process. Let's take the big money out of politics. I hope Nick Clegg

and David Cameron will come forward with their own proposals in which

they say they are willing to take a bit of pain and make changes that

it will make things harder for no political parties but it is in the

interests of democracy. The Labour leader wants a cap on individual

donations of �5,000. Lower than the �10,000 cap suggested by sect

Christopher Kelly from the independent committee on standards

and public alike. It is also lower than the Conservative's proposed

cap of �50,000. But Labour is not suggesting any reform from the way

it gets millions of pounds from affiliated unions by membership the

levees. The Conservatives say without back cuneiform Ed

Miliband's proposals are virtually meaningless. So an agreement on

party formed -- party funding seems to be as far away as ever.

The anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic has been remembered by

events across the world, including Belfast. A memorial service was

held at the North Atlantic it Rex site on the Balmoral, which is

retrace sink the Titanic's route. Flowers were cast into the ocean at

the moment it sank. There is a more news here on BBC

One at 6:35pm. With those party funding proposals

to Grant Shapps later. But it has been a tough three weeks for the

Tories since the Budget. Another row, this time over tax relief on

charitable donations dominating the political news. How worried should

the party be as we approach the local elections on May 3rd? We are

joined by Tim Montgomerie. Labour now has a clear lead in the polls.

The Prime Minister's personal ratings have plummeted. Elections

just around the corner, has serious are your party's problems? These

have not been easy weeks, these last three weeks. But I would have

expected a much bigger deficit for the Conservative Party by now.

Normally you can seek political parties behind by 10 to 20 points.

The latest polls have the Tories 6% behind. Big mistakes have been made

and things have to be changed, but it is fixable. He will have seen

headlines over the charity tax this morning, will this policy survive?

I do not think so. It is an understandable policy error. The

Chancellor wanted to catch and ensure rich people could pay a

certain amount of tax and could not evade their responsibilities. But

if you have the charities, universities, some of the most

respected institutions in the land as well as Tory donors or saying it

is unacceptable, it is one that is going to have to be chucked.

say things could be worse, but things need to be done - what needs

to be done? People don't really know what this Government's central

mission is. The Prime Minister tried with his Big Society message.

In its place is the message of cuts, cuts, cuts. Only 10% of the cuts

have been made so far and the public are only prepared to accept

those cuts unless there is a sense of national renewal, a growth

strategy and a competitive agenda. So we can grow our way out of these

problems otherwise these cuts will be too much to bear. If your party

has not given this to us in all the years of opposition and in two

years of power, how can they give it to us now? I have been

disappointed by some of the Government's communication efforts.

It is not too late. We are only 6% behind, the Labour Party has not

captured the public's imagination either. The Prime Minister has

tremendous gifts and he will have had a wake-up call in the last

three weeks. He will have chance to shuffle his cabinet soon and

clarify what his message is. big is the danger that your party,

the traditional Tories will go to UK I p in May? I don't think it

will happen in May. We see you kick getting up to 7% in one opinion

poll. We have the European elections in June, and if they do

well a year before the election, they are offering very conservative

policies at the moment. It is a danger the Conservative Party

cannot take it right flank for Dane -- granted any more.

To have time for the Tories, but how did they get here and what lies

ahead? It has not been the best springtime weather for the

Conservatives. First there were complaints about the so-called

Granny Tax, and the 50 p cut in the tax rate paid by the well off.

Following revelations wealthy donors had been allowed access to

Number Ten the cash. A row has blown up over a pasty, and a fuel

strike that never happened. And in the latest fall-out, charities have

complained tax changes will hit philanthropy, supposedly the

cornerstone of the Big Society. In three weeks, the party faces local

elections in England, Scotland and Wales and the contest between Boris

Johnston and Ken Livingstone in London. The results will determine

whether the trouble Tory spring is just a passing storm or something

more profound. And the local Government minister, Grant Shapps

joins me now for the Sunday The Labour leader this morning on

the Andrew Marr Show made a significant move on party funding.

He said individual donations, including lump-sum us from trade

unions should be capped at �5,000. Are you up for that? I watched the

interview and discovered of the �10 million to Labour got from the

unions last year, they would still get 9.9 million of it. It is one of

the most disingenuous interviews I have seen all year. Let's look at

the funding figures for 2010. Labour party funding in an election

year which makes it interesting. The 8 million coming from the levy

that trade union members of pay to affiliate to the Labour Party. But

you have 13 million in donations which we understand �4 million has

come from the union. It is not peanuts, it is a huge sum of money.

Just forget about the of the years during the Parliament. Election

year is the important one. You cannot say it is peanuts when

Labour got 13 million in an election year, 4 million from the

unions which Mr Miliband is prepared to forgo. Most of the

other 13 and then came from donations over �5,000. It is a huge

hit he is proposing? And only one year out of five years. We have

been trying for years to get this cap on large donations. Very, very

happy to do that. Every time you get close to it, they say it cannot

include the union donations, but outside this election year data you

have just given us, there are five years in a Parliament, so over the

other for years it is OK for him to keep 9.9 million the unions have

given him. The Labour Party are willing to forgo most of that 13

million in a crucial election year and you are throwing it back in his

face. If you're going to get into this, perhaps you should have an

opt in rather than opt out. To simply say, don't worry, we will

make this big offer appear to be giving away all of this numbly.

13 million? In all the other years, not the election year, still pocket

�9.9 million. Ed Miliband is in the pockets of the unions, he was

elected by the unions, just like Ken Livingstone in London, you

cannot separate them. Let ordinary union members opt into it? That

might be a sensible way to do that. Were due then agree to the other

changes? Let's get round the table and have a look. Would you forgo

the 50,000 that probably buys you supper with the Prime Minister?

heard this analysis of last year that only reduce their income from

the unions by 1%. In our analysis, 13 million. Let's have a look at

this in detail. We are keen to reform party funding. It is the

unions that have been blocking it and the unions run and control Ed

Miliband and the Labour leader. has been a dreadful month for your

party, what has been the most damaging? Creating and necessary

fuel crisis, cutting tax for philanthropist tax dodgers? When

you are in Government things will happen, events happen and all the

rest of it. You created this? not agree. The necessary fuel

crisis? The only place the fuel crisis was created it was the

unions again. The ones that Ed Miliband cannot attack. They have

settled. Let's hope they do. People queued for petrol on the urging of

your Government and they wasted their time and their money. There

would have been no need for any of this had the unions not voted to

strike. Exactly the same unions who back the Labour leader. Let's look

at the Charity Check -- charity tax. Many of us are struggling to

understand what it means but it seems to involve something where

charities would do more and the state less. What is the logic of a

Budget that reduces the flow of money to the charities and

We are happy to liquor any concerns. -- look at. The truth is, this is a

consultation and when you launch a consultation, you look at the

options. We are clear about this. It can't be right for the very

wealthy individuals to effectively get out of paying any tax, some of

them bring their tax rate down to zero simply by making these

charitable donations. It is a great thing to give donations, we have

made sure they are still able to give 50,000 tax-free. Can you give

me a single example of an individual or company or group that

uses charitable donations to get its tax down to zero? �50,000 is a

lot. The single example. We don't have access to everybody's tax

returns. For have you any example? Winnow the Chancellor was look at

some are normalised tax returns the other week. A lot of these were not

charitable donations. You can't give any one single example of

somebody using charitable donations to dodge tax? Give me an example. A

If you are saying the problem doesn't exist, what is the issue?

If you are saying it is a problem, I would appreciate an example.

is clearly the case that at the moment you can make any charitable

donation and bring your tax rate down as a result. The fact that I

can't point to Mr Jones at this address is because tax records are

private. You said they are doing it. If you are in consultation, I

assume you will consult your own party treasurer. This is what he

says it. He is one of the biggest philanthropists in the country and

he says it will put him off and other rich people. A what do you

say to that? Simply this. Everybody has to pay their fair share of tax.

We have said we will close tax loopholes that prevents some be

bought from doing that. You don't think your party treasurer pays his

own fair share of tax? Everybody is welcome to their own opinion. It is

fair that everyone pays their fair share. I bet you that people

watching this programme will be saying, there isn't a reason why it

because you were particularly wealthy you shouldn't pair a fair

percentage tax and if there are loopholes which have close those.

number of philanthropists have number of philanthropists have

written to the Sunday Telegraph. These are people who donate

millions to good causes that your That is your consultation.

consultation is ongoing. These views are welcome. Can you provide

any other public body with a different view? The important thing

is to work with charities to ensure their income is not significantly

impacted. It has to be right, and I believe your viewers will be on the

side of this, to say that everybody should pay their fair share of tax

and if there is a loophole that says you can effectively bring your

tax rate down very low by exploiting this loophole, we need

to look at it. Your fellow Tory MP, who was also on the Andrew Marr

show this morning, David Davies, is the right to say this is a tax with

no friends and it was a mistake? We can already hear the sound of a U-

turn. I disagree. Everybody agrees that this country has to be rescued

from going bust. Standards and poor on Friday reaffirmed our AAA rating

and said there's a good rating for Britain, unlike what has happened

in France and America. And unlike what has happened in places like

Greece. Everyone agrees you need to reduce this expenditure. What is

much harder is when you actually say how you will pay for it.

Because we are in government, we have laid out exactly how we hope

to balance the books. Sometimes that will mean people have to make

a compromise they are not interested in making. On this

occasion we are talking about very wealthy people... How much would

they saved? If you were to close this loophole, how much would it

saved? This will come out in the consultation. You don't know?

don't have the figure. You have incurred the wrath of these

philanthropists and your party German and you don't know how much

it would save? I've been a minister for two years. I've never had

anybody into my office who said this is the best cut you could make.

Everybody will tell you whatever the measure your taking to stop the

country going to the wall is the worst thing you could do. The truth

is, we can't spend money we don't have. We have to have cuts in

expenditure and we have to make sure we raise the tax. If people

are not paying tax at the appropriate rate, I don't think it

is right that we played -- pay doctors and nurses and everybody

else to pay the correct rate of income tax, but some people don't

have to do. You would still be able to give �50,000 to charity and you

can give as much money as you like to charity, but you will need to

pay some tax. If you can give us some examples, we will put them on

the website. Thank you for joining Should the tax affairs of

politicians be made public? After a row between London mayoral

candidate Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone that led to both

pledging full disclosure and others, including the prime minister,

saying they are happy to follow suit, that is on the agenda. How we

buy it -- how about we publish yours? Still keen? Giles has been

to Sweden where they have been showing all tax since 1766.

The Swedes, like us, take personal privacy seriously. There Data

Protection Act makes it illegal to access bank account data and health

records, but the irony is that in Sweden, when it comes to tax

returns and celery, details that we in the UK would regard as private

and personal, you don't need a supercomputer packing Lisbeth Sir

Alan De, you can find all of these people's details quite freely on

line. We have very low corruption once -- in Sweden and we are very

proud of it. Our openness when it comes to information and freedom to

seek information is vital in our open society. It is a 300 year-old

constitutional tradition which creates a computerised heaven for

journalists. The MP we interviewed, you have just captained his name

and his details come up. Yes, it takes one minute. This USP Memory

stick contains all of the details about, for example, income, debts,

what properties you own. It contains all the people in Sweden.

And they restrict protection for all those asking questions. -- they

eat -- and there is strict protection. They have no right to

ask me my name. They have no right to ask me the purpose of my request.

And if, for instance, they can deduce that I am asking for these

documents because there has been a leak, they have absolutely no right

to try to find that leak. This is about two principles. Freedom of

information and personal data protection and where one overrides

the other. Perhaps for us, a compromise would be to demand just

politicians are taxed at -- transparent. I think it would be

difficult to have a system that is legitimate to the people were using

Deloitte certain categories. If using Deloitte politicians, that

will send another signal that they are treated like criminals. It

would be like putting them inside barbed-wire and putting the

spotlight on them. If all of us had to do this, or would it just become

a snoopers paradise? Just ask for Swedes. Do they actually Snoop?

should I check my neighbours tax returns? That is kind of weird,

isn't it? A bit cranky. I would like to see my neighbours

tax returns! Should we do as the Nigel Farrell arch, if you have

nothing to hide, what is the problem with being transparent?

difference between public and private. The biggest problem isn't

that we demand to know how much tax or wealth politicians have got, the

biggest problem is they don't engage with concerns and they

appear to be grossly incompetent. I Liquor career politics in Britain

today, there's not by entrepreneur on the front benches. Her we put

off entrepreneurs and successful people from coming into politics.

think there is a problem if you only basket of politicians. Matthew

Parris had a good article in the Times yesterday where he said he is

opposed to it, I'm in favour of it, where he said starting with

politicians means we will end up somewhere else. We will go through

the council officials, councillors. The slippery slope. He says it is

the thin end of the wedge, but I like the wedge. You think all tax

returns should be published? don't see anything wrong with the

Swedish system. Why? We are talking about civic responsibility. The

payment of tax is something that we undertake as a part of our duties

as citizens. It doesn't seem to me it is actually a private matter.

That is what is coming out in the argument between Ken and Boris.

People don't feel it is a private matter in their case. I think it is

private. If you were to give money to charity, a very topical subject,

that has to go on your tax return. A lot of people who give money to

charity do so without bells and whistles, privately, so we may find

out that if we want to get more wealthy people into politics, we

stop money going into charity because they don't want the world

to know. I don't see the strength of that argument. If everybody is

showing their tax returns, I don't see why it would have any impact on

people's willingness to give to charity unless they give to really

bizarre charities. They may well do, but they may think they are

important. Shouldn't they have the privacy? You could make the

argument that you don't have to name the particular charity. There

are changes in rules between the Finns, the Norwegians and the

Swedes as to exactly what you do. If you think everybody's tax

returns should be public, should it also be public how much everybody

receives in benefits? Yes, probably. There is a significant argument for

that as well. That would be a more difficult rule to enforce. Would

it? Why? The government is paying them. You would have to get round a

large number of different agencies in order to get them to publish.

Not very English! We don't even tell a or brother what we earn. We

are very private about money in this country. You mean it is not

unlike Scotland or Wales? You can give me the Scottish equivalent. I

think it is something we regard as being a very private matter. Our

culture is completely different to Sweden. That is what has changed.

The Swedes are fairly private as well despite the imaginations about

public nudity and so on. Maybe if they are not as nosy as we are!

think they are not as envious as we imagine we are. The real problem is

not privacy, but those of us who do well are worried about the MBE as

targets of neighbours. Almost certainly wrongly, but you can see

why sometimes might sometimes feel that. There was a time less than 50

years ago when a lot of politicians, particularly Conservatives, said

where we get our money from as a party should be private. No one

believes in that argument now. Aren't you battling against a tide?

In the future we will think it only natural that we should see the tax

returns of politicians. That may well be right. It may well be that

my argument will lose. Because the MoD are demanding more and more.

This is mob rule. -- mob. My argument is this. We have an

absolute dearth of talent in British politics in terms of

experience of life and I want to see better people in politics and

the more intrusion we have, the fewer people... You said it is our

civic duty to pay tax. If I have my accountant saying that I am

resident in Britain for tax purposes and that I submit their

tax return every year to HMRC... Why is that not enough? Why? Let's

take the case where this has come from. Ken Livingstone has at last

that people who he says are not paying as much tax as they could do.

Then it is discovered that he himself is doing it. People's

reaction to this is not just about hypocrisy, it is about whether or

not you pay your dues in a way that I understand. If that is applicable

to Ken, it is applicable to anybody. 5080 % in the latest polls say

politicians tax returns should be Is it true these rumours that some

Conservative MPs are in talks with UKIP? If we continued to grow in

the opinion polls, I think some will join. Are you having

discussions? In politics you have discussions with people all of the

time. I will take that as a yes. Can you give us the names of the

Tory MPs? Not just yet. It is approaching 12:30pm: Coming

up I will be looking at the week ahead with the best political panel

in the business. Across the Sunday politics and

across the United Kingdom. Welcome to London. With our gaze on

the election for the Lord Mayor, we will be talking to candlelit, Brian

Paddick. Then we will be looking at UKIP has to offer which go beyond

its beliefs in Europe. The electoral gloves are off, but they

were also on, Brian Paddick launched his campaign in shorts and

inside a boxing ring. But the polls suggest he could be in for pounding

on May 3rd. He is here to tell us what he will do about that. Before

we come on to policing, crime, what you say is your unique selling-

point, let's look at the broader picture. The Liberal Democrats in

the polls, they are low showing and so are you. Is your low showing

because of theirs or is there another reason? What I want

Londoners to do it is to vote and what the London Liberal Democrats

are offering over the next three years. I don't want this to be a

referendum on the coalition Government. The Labour Party were

planning a celebration in Bradford the day before George Galloway took

the seat from them. Nobody predicted that was going to happen.

Even on the basis of the polls. It was a surprise result. What I am

hearing his people are fed up with Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson

taking lumps out of each other, talking about the past. Londoners

want somebody talking positively about the future and that is what I

am doing and the Liberal Democrats are doing. Why we do not want it to

be a Polish -- referendum on the coalition at the moment? We have

had a record increase in the personal allowance announced in the

last Budget, so you can earn up to �9,000 without paying tax

altogether. That was in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. We are doing

lots of positive things, but the selection is not about a coalition.

It is about the Liberal Democrats pursuing a progressive and positive

agenda for London. To be clear, you want to distance yourself from a

coalition and the Liberal Democrat part of it at the moment? That is

what you're saying isn't it? No, we want Londoners to vote on what of

vision is over the next four years. If they look to the coalition and

the Liberal Democrat six nationally, they may not vote for you in

London? This is what the party is going to offer Londoners for the

next four years and beyond. There are coalition policies that affect

London. Do you support the increase in tuition fees? Of course I don't

support that. The Liberal Democrats decide what their policy is at

party conference and the Liberal Democrat policy and tuition fees is

to abolish them. What about this that affects so many students?

cars of the mess the Labour Party left, we have had to target

benefits. There are students who still get financial support. So it

is yes. What about the reduction of the top rate of income tax, do you

support that? I don't care if it is a 50 pence rate of income tax,

mansion tax or tycoon tax. Provided the richest people pay the most tax.

It you could make the decision, which model would you go for?

most effective model that brings in most tax. The top rate has gone

down, but what has replaced that? It is perceived as helping the very

rich in the capital, do you agree? Boris Johnson is benefiting from a

reduction in and 50 p tax rate. He was the only candidate running to

be the mayor lobbying the Government to reduce the 50 pence

rate. Ken Livingstone would have been avoiding that if he had not

avoided paying tax which was a private company. What the

Government established was it was not effective in bringing in extra

income to the Exchequer. The changes made in the budgets are

likely to bring in five times more money from rich people than the 50

pence tax rate. So you do effectively Rebecca -- support it

in the round? It is important the richest pay tax. Let's move on to

policing and you are an ex-police officer. How would you control or

get anything done with this new Lord Mayor and policing Commission?

Because in London, the police and crime Commission there is also the

mayor. If Londoners vote for me on 3rd May, not only will I become

mayor of London but I will be head of the Police Commission. Instead

of a group of people deciding the budgets for the police, it will be

me in charge of that. What would you change? I would make sure the

police actually adopt what Londoners priorities are. I want

the safer neighbourhood teams, the community support officers knocking

on doors and establishing from local people what their priorities

are. They do that and now don't they? No they don't do that. They

hold meetings were the usual suspects, the vocal, the articulate

turn up and claimed to know what local people want. What the Lib

Dems do in by-elections, we do crime surveys, we knock on every

door in every ward. Would you need more of those community police

officers to do that? No we wouldn't. Part of their role is to build a

rapport with local people and part of that is knocking on doors and

asking them what their priorities are. We would then hold the police

to account, to adopt those priorities. So they can prove they

are on the side of Londoners. There was a poll two weeks ago which

showed 20% of Londoners did not believe the police are on their

side. We have got to get that right up to 99%. The commissioner decides,

I don't want to allocate the time to all this door knocking because

there are serious crime problems in a certain area I want to

concentrate on. It is an operational matter and he won't be

able to do anything about it? important role is to set the

priorities for the police. I will set a priority for the commissioner

that he, locally adopts the priorities of local people and I

will say to him, the only way you can establish that is by going and

knocking on every door. I don't care whether he gets a survey

company to do that all volunteers, but it is within my power to

require the commissioner to do that. I am wondering about the wider

picture from someone who is an ex- police officer. Someone regarded as

a maverick, quite controversial. And a man who, fell out with the

previous commissioners, will they take kindly to at interfering at

any level at Scotland Yard? Lord Stevens and I never fell out.

about over the cannabis, you tried the softly-softly approach? He said

to me, Brian I like a person who takes risks as long as they come

off. There were what turned out to be malicious allegations made about

me in a Sunday newspaper and he felt it was best for me to be moved

was the investigation was going on. I know Bernard Hogan Howe. We work

together when we were in the Met. I have had a one hour meeting with

him. At the end of the meeting he gave me his own personal mobile

phone number. I don't think that sounds like so many who does not

want to do business with me. What is Bernard Hogan Howe doing about

gangs? Also about racism and stop and search. Are you happy with that,

it is all being done? Bernard Hogan Howe wants to review the use of

section 60, a controversial power to search for weapons, because he

has been legally challenged in the courts. I want a fundamental review.

And search to prevent what happens at the moment, which is

unfortunately, black people being racially stereotyped by police

officers as criminals. He is getting the balance about right in

fact, and what we have been hearing in the media, indiscriminately

targeting people. The numbers show you are likely to be stopped four

times more if you're black than white. Under section 60 it is like

two in 100 searchers a result in something being found. It is

ineffective and it needs to change. You had a couple of difficulties

knowing the costings of York transport policy. Are you there

now? How much it will cost four tubes and buses, and your Hock Ong,

hop off? We think it will cost between 80 and �90 million. That is

based on Transport for London figures. That is a year.

million! That is less than a third of what Ken Livingstone is

proposing. His costs are over �1 billion in four years. That is the

most liberal estimate you can put on our proposals. We think the fair

take will increase because people will seek they are much fairer,

there will be able to hop on and hotpot the transport system.

will cost something to change the system so it recognises it would

pay as you go and Oyster and everything? We asked Transport for

London, it was an official questions to the Lord Mayor in a

transport meeting. They said 30 to �40 million. That is the TfL answer

and they also said there is the potential for the number of

journeys on buses to increase and the cost would be less than that.

For the moment, don't go anywhere. More from you in a moment, but lots

of talk recently about how much of a threat the United Kingdom

Independence Party could pose the Conservatives in the future. Could

we learn much about that in the city hall elections? An offshoot of

the party had two assembly members elected in 2004 and matters went

the way European elections on the same day. In the cut and thrust of

London Regional politics, what is UKIP for?

With images of European crisis all too familiar, it may be little

surprise the hardening of British attitudes towards the European

Union. Just because voters and not keen on European integration, does

that mean they will start voting UKIP in London elections? The party

have had an unhappy record so far translating their message to the

regional politics of City Hall. Their only success came in 2004

when the GLA elections were held on the same day as European ones. They

won two seats on the London assembly, but lost them quickly.

What stupid, awkward questions were newbie asking me? After a couple of

years, they followed Robert Kilroy- Silk into his new party. Now this

is their manifesto for this year's elections. But it is about the

congestion charge, the Tube, the police and nothing to do with

whether we should keep the pound or not. What message do they have for

London? If their flag was to fly over City Hall, what would we see?

The party has cast itself as the defender of financial services

saying ordinary Londoners jobs are under threat from European

interference. We need to distinguish between British

interest and the interest of the small financial elite at the top of

Canary Wharf. These are people who make absolutely millions and

millions of pounds each year, gambling in a way that is not

productive. But does not create jobs and it does not help London or

Britain. This tax would be useful because it takes resources from

those people and spends a useful on the poor.

UKIP after the sympathy at of Newt -- motorists. They would scrap the

congestion charge and want them there to be able to control parking

in London. Parking is a mish-mash. 5 million parking tickets issued in

London and a 5th of those are successfully appealed. Most people

don't appeal them because they will double in two weeks if they don't

pay it. At the moment the mayor does not control parking across

London. Perhaps then a slightly risky flagship, transport policy.

You come into office, then you say to the Government I will control

the parking. The Government say, no chance, mate. That is your key

transport policy blown out of the water? It is fundamental but the

mayor does control certain areas of parking, he controls the red routes.

I want to extend VAT. A lot of controlled parking zones that

happened are subsidised by TfL. So, there is already an influence in

Of the party's 26 also pledges, only around seven relate to things

the Mayor can actually do. Policies like cuts in VAT and roaring back

the smoking ban fall outside the remit of City Hall. Part of the

Mayor's responsibility is to create a vision for London and that is

what I have done. All the candidates have mentioned things

they don't have control over. Boris with his airport in the Thames. He

has no control over that. Ken wants to declare UD I completely. It is a

wish list, a lobbying position. It is right that the Mayor has a

vision for taking London forward and that is what some of those

other areas are. While other candidates made do the same thing,

could it be a problem for party best known for its views on Europe?

One recent poll put UKIP on 11% support of voters in the general

election. A few days later another poll looking at the mayoral

election suggested support of just 1%. London is a tougher

constituency. Why is that? Because there is a greater disengagement in

London politics because there is an influx of people from outside. In

the outer boroughs, a number of people don't recognise the

importance of the mire. Voting is less in the outer boroughs than the

central boroughs. The odds of London having a UKIP mare come May

are pretty slim, although the party is hoping to return one or two

members to the London Assembly. Their ability to do so may well

depend on whether they can convince Londoners they are party concerned

with more than just the European London -- European Union.

We understand UKIP are telling their supporters to vote for Boris

Johnson second. Where would you suggest your supporters vote

second? My job is to convince people to vote Liberal Democrat on

May 3rd. We know that. What about an answer? That is the only thing I

will ask Londoners to do. It is entirely up to that other people

who they vote for. I will not lobby on behalf of another candidate.

Second preference system. With the coalition government, the first

time in 60 years, the impetus is greater than ever to know whether a

Lib Dem candidate is signalling that second preference votes should

go somewhere. Should they go it to the Conservative candidate? I can

tell you absolutely that I am not suggesting Londoners vote for Boris

Johnson or Ken Livingstone second preference. I'm not suggesting

Londoners vote for any other candidate, I just suggest a vote

Lib Dem. Last time you said you would have

voted for the respect candidate as your second candidate. Left less.

Does that indicate your own leanings? The reason I voted left

list last time was because that candidate had a massive socialist

house building programme. That is what I'm absolutely passionate

about as well. That is why in our manifesto we say we will have a

massive social housebuilding programme... You did it on one

issue. A Yes. What can we say in terms of the social housing, Boris

Johnson or Ken Livingstone is promising enough social housing?

Neither of them is promising a massive social housing programme.

Only the Lib Dems are promising to build 360,000 know you -- new homes.

That is why I am suggesting to people vote Lib Dem on May 3rd.

see you like sparring. Which one of the two of them would you most like

to get in the boxing ring with? wouldn't like to get into the

boxing ring with either of them. Would you take them both on? That

is the only place that borrowing should be taking place. When we are

doing these debates, Londoners want to hear about positive things for

the future of London. They don't want to see us scrapping. I'm happy

to get into a boxing ring with either of them after May 3rd, but

until then let's concentrate on the issues. Your ruling that out?

afraid the knockout in the boxing afraid the knockout in the boxing

ring is not on the cards. Thank you. Time to remind you of all of the

Next week, our guest is the Labour Tomorrow the Conservatives will be

launching their local election manifesto. The budget has been

debated in the Commons and there's bound to be more reaction to that

Isabel, why has Mr Miliband chosen to make this offer now and how

significant is it? The cynic in me things this is a sort of offer you

can make from the luxury of opposition. Remember when Cameron

came up with his 50,000 cap on donations in opposition and nothing

came of it. Remember who it was that wrecked the party funding

talks the last time they happen. It was Labour and it was because of

the trade union issue. I would not be particularly optimistic this

will come to anything. It does but the Tories in a difficult position.

The thing to look out for is what the Lib Dems do. If they go along

with this offer, as I suspect they will given that they don't receive

these huge number of individual donations, the Tories are suddenly

left as the only party in British politics, the only main party, to

be on the other side of the argument. That kind of political

isolation is difficult. The Tory tactic, which we saw with Grant

Shapps, that it doesn't amount to row of beans, that isn't going to

hold. It may do, but it will require a complicated argument.

What cuts through is the fact of two parties been on one side of the

argument, in favour of reform, and the Tories on the other. The rights

and wrongs may be ambiguous, but the dividing line won't be. It is

also a clever branding exercise. Ed Miliband has said we are prepared

to take away millions of pounds of our funding, but that will come at

a cost of the �5,000 cap the Tories will never accept. He's managed to

make a point without having to pay the money up front. For the Tories

to downplay it is perhaps downplaying the significance of

what Ed Miliband would have to achieve to get this through. What

he wants is the small donation model which Obama used cleverly.

That is a very strategic move for Ed Miliband because as the

opposition you're more likely to benefit from small donations.

you think this is just politics, there's no real substance, parties

are playing politics, if the Tory response shouldn't have been thank

you very much, we will take all of that, provided you agree that the

levy will be and opting Levey among union members. It is their

strongest argument. Although the central donations provided by

unions to Labour will be affected by this proposal, it is still the

case that all of the individual Saabs can be aggregated. That is

worth about 8 million. It dwarfs the central donations from the

unions. In an election year you get more. A lot of that must come from

people who were giving more than 5,000. I wouldn't be surprised if

Ed Miliband has bothered running this by the trade unions. I don't

think it would have gone down too well. Let's move on to politics.

The charity tax. How did they get into such a mess? It is the latest

in a series of misses. Of a prone to it? They seem to be, especially

since the Budget. What united the row over the charity tax, along

with the granny tax, is in both cases the Conservatives fail to

make an argument for a policy. That speaks to a gap between the kind of

radicalism of the government's policies and the political will to

sell them. There's a certain squeamishness which is not very

becoming and dangerous. There's also a deeper issue about

competence. That will have to be massively one over. We know from

Tim Montgomerie's article this week that there are rumours about

Cameron's leadership in this position and Osborne's. After the

local elections, we will see that come to the surface. The question

marks over the leadership are understated. But Number Ten lacks

political capacity. It is staffed by civil servants and they can't

say to George Osborne, make the case for this tax. George -- Andrew

Lansley, this NHS bill might alienate the country. Civil

servants can't make those interventions. Number Ten needs to

beef up when it comes to operating staff. I agree. What strikes me

about this whole thing is the gap that it shows in the communications

operation. There's nobody in Number Ten looking up for these elephants

traps. No one is even preparing the ground. There is the case, which we

have not heard, of saying that charitable donations should not be

a limited when it comes to tax. We have not heard that case. They have

gone down another cul-de-sac, about dodgy charities. That is a matter

for HMRC and the Charities Commission. It was the same with

the granny tax. When you looked at the figures, people could have

bought into it, but the problem was the territory had not been prepared.

U-turn coming on this? Inevitably. The more they deny it, the more

stupid they will look. They insist not. That means it is coming!

the other issue is that HMRC itself will have to make 25% cut so the

next couple of years. Those slip ups and problems that come from the

tax system will get worse. Explain this. We are in a London mayoral

election, which has almost got a national status because the two

front runners are Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone. In London, Labour

as a party is about eight points ahead. Mr Livingstone is about six

point behind. Discuss. Absolutely. The way they should be playing it

is this is a Labour election and not a Ken Livingstone election.

That wasn't what the election broadcast was about, it was about

10. Let's be clear. All of the parties are trying to distance

themselves from their candidates. Cameron knows it is much better for

borrowers to be able to play out his campaign away from the

Conservative image and Ed Miliband knows it is better for him to stay

away from Ken because if Ken loses, it will be quite damaging for his...

Boris is more popular than his party, Ken is less popular than his

party. Labour could not have chosen a worse candidate and the Tories

couldn't have a better candidate. I think it is in Labour's interest

for Ken to lose. If he loses, it is a short-term use and in that the

pressure shifts to Miliband. If he wins, the second most prominent

Labour politician in the country will be someone who will say and do

things consistently that caused embarrassment to Ed Miliband.

very complicated! I don't think it has been fun enough. Nobody --

nobody has seen Boris getting up to mischief. We might try to get some

fun. That is all for today. We will be back tomorrow on BBC Two for the