:00:41. > :00:47.Good morning. Welcome to the new improved, extended and earlier
:00:47. > :00:51.Sunday Politics. Beware of the tax police, as Lib Dems gather in
:00:52. > :00:56.Brighton. Danny Alexander announces plans to crack down on anyone who
:00:56. > :01:04.has a home worth 1 million quid, and might not be paying the tax
:01:04. > :01:09.they should. The Chief Secretary joins us for the top story. Will we
:01:09. > :01:15.hear more about the wealth tax? Could it work and would it be good
:01:15. > :01:21.for the economy? Evan Harris and John Redwood go head to head. Time
:01:22. > :01:27.for a fresh crackdown on the jobs who will hurl abuse at the police -
:01:27. > :01:31.no sign yet as Andrew Mitchell hangs onto his job. We will ask
:01:31. > :01:35.Eric Pickles whether his posh colleague should get back on his
:01:35. > :01:38.bike and pedal are out of the Cabinet. In London - the Liberal
:01:38. > :01:41.Democrats rule out a third runway at Heathrow. I'll be talking to
:01:41. > :01:51.Nick Clegg about whether the expansion at Gatwick or Stanstead
:01:51. > :02:01.
:02:01. > :02:03.is an option. With me throughout, the best political panel. They will
:02:03. > :02:13.be tweeting as if their careers depended on it throughout the
:02:13. > :02:22.
:02:22. > :02:32.programme, which they probably do. Nick what of the Guardian, Isabel
:02:32. > :02:35.
:02:35. > :02:41.Oakeshot, and Janan Ganesh. Nick Clegg has been talking about the
:02:41. > :02:43.new idea to help young people on to the housing ladder. I can announce
:02:44. > :02:48.today the government will be doing something which hasn't happened
:02:48. > :02:53.before - we will be working out ways in which parents and
:02:53. > :02:57.grandparents who want to help their children by a property of their own,
:02:57. > :03:02.we will be allowing them to use their pensions to act as a
:03:02. > :03:12.guarantee so that their youngsters can take out a deposit and buy a
:03:12. > :03:13.
:03:13. > :03:16.home. On the one hand you need a big pension pot to guarantee a
:03:16. > :03:22.deposit, so this would help the better-off, on the other hand they
:03:22. > :03:28.seem to be bashing the better off at every opportunity. For the issue
:03:28. > :03:32.for most young people is trying to raise a big deposit. When I first
:03:32. > :03:42.bought a property, we have to raise 5% and that was a struggle in
:03:42. > :03:42.
:03:42. > :03:47.itself. Now you have to raise between 30,000-�50,000. Would your
:03:47. > :03:53.parents risk their pension pot on your deposit? I am not sure there
:03:53. > :03:56.was enough there. There has been so much talk about some kind of bloody
:03:57. > :04:00.on property or pensions to make things easier when it comes to
:04:00. > :04:06.buying property and they need to have something to show for that
:04:06. > :04:11.talk, but the practical difficulties, as we have seen with
:04:11. > :04:19.the proposed mansion tax, they are so owner as I am not convinced they
:04:19. > :04:27.will produce anything by 2015. parents are not like Nick Ross. If
:04:27. > :04:31.we can speak up for the Lib Dems, this is about aiming this at the
:04:31. > :04:34.squeezed middle. Those who do not have large amounts in a building
:04:34. > :04:41.society, but those who have modest assets and they would hope to draw
:04:42. > :04:46.some of those down for their children. The man behind this,
:04:46. > :04:56.Danny Alexander joins me now from the party's conference in Brighton.
:04:56. > :05:03.
:05:03. > :05:09.Good morning. Let's start with this anti-affluence unit. There is a
:05:10. > :05:15.basic point that everyone should play by the rules. We have been
:05:15. > :05:19.investing more time and effort in making sure people can't engage in
:05:19. > :05:26.tax avoidance. Tax evasion is cracked down on more toughly even
:05:26. > :05:30.than before. Last year we announced the creation of these affluence
:05:30. > :05:35.units to look at the minority of people in that bracket whose
:05:35. > :05:39.affairs presenter risks to the taxman, if you like. Today we are
:05:39. > :05:46.seeing how HMRC have got on, and that has been very successful. They
:05:46. > :05:49.have brought in �44 million in the first year of that unit. They have
:05:49. > :05:54.said it for cast the net more widely, we can bring in more
:05:54. > :05:58.resource. It will pay at least 15 times the amount of money we put in,
:05:58. > :06:03.but it is targeting those people whose affairs are risky. It will
:06:03. > :06:09.not mean anyone who has a home over a million pounds will get enough,
:06:09. > :06:14.door from the taxman. If you have a house or other assets combined at
:06:15. > :06:22.more than a million, you will now become the subject of special
:06:22. > :06:25.scrutiny from the taxman - is that true? Or if your net worth is more
:06:25. > :06:32.than a million pounds, you will be in the population that the affluent
:06:32. > :06:35.unit is able to look at, but HMRC can identify particular groups and
:06:35. > :06:41.individuals where there are particular tax risks. For example,
:06:41. > :06:46.those with properties overseas. They will not be looking at every
:06:46. > :06:52.person in that group. They will be saying let's identify the areas
:06:52. > :06:55.where there are risks. Let's employ more experts in tax law and
:06:55. > :06:59.accountancy to really make sure those people are playing by the
:06:59. > :07:03.rules, paying the taxes they should be saying. The consequence of
:07:03. > :07:08.people who dodge the tax system is that those of us who play by the
:07:08. > :07:17.rules have to pay more tax as a result. Let's look at the sudden
:07:17. > :07:23.idea your party has unveiled today, that parents and grandparents can
:07:24. > :07:28.dig into their pension pot. You would need a pretty big pension.
:07:28. > :07:32.This is a subsidy to the better-off. I think there are a lot of people
:07:32. > :07:37.out there who already help their children with deposits. That
:07:37. > :07:40.happened to me when I bought my first home, but there are an awful
:07:40. > :07:45.lot of parents who don't have any cash to help their children get on
:07:45. > :07:54.the housing ladder. In many cases they might have built up a
:07:54. > :07:58.substantial pension pot, which they were -- will be able to release
:07:58. > :08:03.after pension age. Parents in those category can use a lump sum when
:08:03. > :08:06.they reach retirement age to guarantee part of the mortgage,
:08:06. > :08:11.precisely the helped their children need to get on the housing ladder.
:08:11. > :08:17.It is about fairness and making sure young people have the chance
:08:17. > :08:21.to get on the housing ladder. also about your mother and father
:08:21. > :08:31.having a big enough pension pot. Let's turn to the apology. We
:08:31. > :08:33.
:08:33. > :08:38.haven't got much time. Tuition fees - Vince Cable says you warned Nick
:08:38. > :08:42.Clegg abolishing tuition fees was unaffordable. How did he respond?
:08:42. > :08:50.We had a debate about this as a party for many months running up to
:08:50. > :08:56.the election. The what did you tell him and how did he respond? We knew
:08:56. > :09:03.that this was an expensive policy. What we put in our manifesto was a
:09:03. > :09:09.graduated way... Mr Alexander, what did you tell him and how did he
:09:09. > :09:14.respond? I'm coming to that. I am saying that we were clear this was
:09:14. > :09:19.an expensive pledge, it would be difficult to afford under the
:09:19. > :09:26.financial circumstances, but as a democratic party where our party
:09:26. > :09:30.conference have a big role in shaping our manifesto and we
:09:30. > :09:40.decided to include that in the manifesto and sign up to that
:09:40. > :09:41.
:09:41. > :09:46.pledge. What did you tell him and how did he respond? You after the -
:09:46. > :09:50.- filibustering. I don't remember the details of the conversation
:09:50. > :09:55.which took place quite a few years ago, but this was an expensive
:09:55. > :09:59.policy and it would be difficult to afford, and that is why we took the
:09:59. > :10:04.approach we did in our manifesto, phasing it in over a number of
:10:04. > :10:08.years. Under the financial circumstances, it was not
:10:08. > :10:15.affordable, and we made a pledge we could not keep. That is why he
:10:15. > :10:19.apologised. You signed the NUS pledge, was that before or after
:10:19. > :10:23.your warning that it was unaffordable? For it is something I
:10:23. > :10:27.regret, I wish I hadn't done it because it was not a promise we
:10:27. > :10:32.could keep. How do already said it was unaffordable when you signed
:10:32. > :10:38.it? I signed it during the election campaign. The discussions you are
:10:38. > :10:42.referring to took place way before that campaign, but having agreed to
:10:42. > :10:46.include this policy in the manifesto I followed through that
:10:46. > :10:56.in the way every other Liberal Democrats MP did. We will let you
:10:56. > :10:57.
:10:57. > :11:01.get back to the conference in Brighton. Thank you. Mystery still
:11:01. > :11:05.surrounds exactly what the chief whip, Andrew Mitchell, said to
:11:05. > :11:11.police officers on Wednesday night after they refused to let him ride
:11:11. > :11:14.his bike through the main gate at Downing Street. He accepts he gave
:11:14. > :11:18.them a near full and there are reports this morning that he now
:11:18. > :11:28.one admits to swearing at them, but he still denies he called the
:11:28. > :11:30.
:11:30. > :11:37.offices morons and plebs. Can he survive? If it is established he
:11:38. > :11:47.used that word or swore, I think he is toast. The toxic nature of the
:11:48. > :11:49.
:11:49. > :11:53.word pleb, and secondly because he lied. If it is established those
:11:54. > :12:00.were the words used, I think he will be gone. It is difficult for
:12:00. > :12:05.that to be established. We probably have two police officers. Yes, but
:12:05. > :12:10.it depends on them publicise and that, and you can imagine the
:12:10. > :12:16.police dropping it if it is too dangerous. David Cameron could have
:12:16. > :12:20.done with this like a hole in the head. Nothing substantially new has
:12:20. > :12:24.emerged, and it is one person's word against another, and we still
:12:25. > :12:31.don't know who the police then is. I think this story is running out
:12:31. > :12:41.of steam now. Do you agree with that? It is dreadful because David
:12:41. > :12:42.
:12:42. > :12:46.Cameron has spent 10 years trying to detoxify his party, and now this
:12:46. > :12:50.word has been used. I think Andrew Mitchell has got to draw a line
:12:51. > :12:56.under this. In the old days, Chief whips did not appear on television.
:12:56. > :13:01.He has got to face the camera and say what he is allowing his friends
:13:01. > :13:11.to say, which is yes I lost my rag and I swore, but I did not use the
:13:11. > :13:12.
:13:12. > :13:18.word pleb. There are some people who find it hard to believe he used
:13:18. > :13:23.that word. Has he got previous? apparently it is not the first time.
:13:23. > :13:31.For remember the big Raul about planning reform, the one that
:13:31. > :13:36.ground on for two years until the U-turn in March? The row is back.
:13:36. > :13:42.Some time in summer, the Chancellor and Prime Minister decided they
:13:42. > :13:45.wanted more. The rumblings of discontent have carried on. David
:13:45. > :13:49.Cameron and George Osborne have demanded planning regulation must
:13:49. > :13:53.not hold back growth. The Prime Minister said he was frustrated by
:13:53. > :13:58.the current system and that he was determined to cut through the
:13:58. > :14:04.dither that holds this country back. One plan is to allow householders
:14:04. > :14:08.to build bigger extensions without planning permission. This week the
:14:08. > :14:12.council decided to block what they said was a very foolish proposal,
:14:12. > :14:18.and there could be more building on green belt land provided
:14:18. > :14:21.replacement land is found instead. This weekend attempt to focus the
:14:21. > :14:26.government on growth have been sidelined by the row over the Chief
:14:26. > :14:32.Whip's outburst at police officers in Downing Street. Andrew Mitchell
:14:32. > :14:40.is accused of swearing at the police, which he now admits. The
:14:40. > :14:44.Police Federation insists that police officer's notebooks confirm
:14:45. > :14:54.that and that he should resign. Eric Pickles joins me for the
:14:55. > :15:00.
:15:00. > :15:05.Eric Pickles, let's start with Andrew Mitchell and go on to
:15:05. > :15:10.planning. Do you accept either the police or the Chief Whip is lying?
:15:10. > :15:16.It would be wrong to say either party is lying. But what is clear,
:15:16. > :15:23.Andrew Mitchell, used ungallant language which he regrets, and
:15:23. > :15:28.which he has apologised both to the police and the Prime Minister.
:15:28. > :15:34.the Metropolitan Police Federation who represents the police officers
:15:34. > :15:39.has been clear, they said police notebooks confirmed Mr Mitchell
:15:39. > :15:45.swore at them and use the word plebs. If it is established, will
:15:45. > :15:50.he have to go? Mr Mitchell has apologised. But not for using the
:15:50. > :15:55.word pleb. If he did, would he have to go? Mr Mitchell is clear he did
:15:55. > :15:59.not use the word pleb. The somebody who has been a member of Parliament
:15:59. > :16:03.for 20 years, sometimes in difficult times, I have always been
:16:03. > :16:08.grateful for the police and the protection they offer, both for the
:16:08. > :16:16.Palace of Westminster and Downing Street. His it likely it is the
:16:16. > :16:20.sort of work, a rugby educated at Mr Mitchell would use, rather than
:16:20. > :16:25.one big police officer would fabricate? At cannot recall Mr
:16:25. > :16:29.Mitchell and the times I have been with him every using such a word.
:16:29. > :16:36.So am of his colleagues have told us it is the sort of language that
:16:36. > :16:42.rings true of Mr Mitchell. Is this the sort of word he would use?
:16:42. > :16:47.has not used it in my presence. I am very proud myself to be a pleb.
:16:47. > :16:53.Do you accept no Cabinet minister can call the police plebs and stay
:16:53. > :16:58.in the Cabinet? No Cabinet minister can abuse the police. No Cabinet
:16:58. > :17:04.minister should lose their temper with the police. I don't believe
:17:04. > :17:09.given Andrew Mitchell, has apologised, given... He has not
:17:09. > :17:13.apologised for the workload. Can a Cabinet minister called the police
:17:13. > :17:18.plebs and survive? The Prime Minister has given him a public
:17:18. > :17:22.dressing-down. He should be given the opportunity to start the
:17:22. > :17:29.process of being a good Chief Whip. Who do you think the public are
:17:29. > :17:34.more likely to believe? At Tory politician nicknamed Thrasher
:17:34. > :17:38.because of the way he treated people are public school, or a
:17:38. > :17:44.couple of policemen? What happened was wrong. It shouldn't have
:17:44. > :17:48.happened. Mr Mitchell accepts it shouldn't have happened. Recognised
:17:48. > :17:53.he used, both in terms of his behaviour and language, was
:17:53. > :17:58.inappropriate. This is the poll from the Mail on Sunday this
:17:58. > :18:06.morning. The question was, should Andrew Mitchell resigned question-
:18:06. > :18:12.marks us -- 67% yes, 22% said No. They want him to go. I don't
:18:12. > :18:18.believe someone should Duke -- lose public office because they used
:18:18. > :18:23.inappropriate words and lost her temper. He has made a good start of
:18:23. > :18:28.being Chief Whip in terms of rebuilding the party and re-
:18:28. > :18:33.establishing the office. It could not have come at a worse time.
:18:33. > :18:43.one player to another, it does this make you embarrassed and angry? --
:18:43. > :18:43.
:18:43. > :18:49.won play up to another. I think Mr Mitchell is angry. Are you not
:18:49. > :18:55.angry as well? In the power of forgiveness, and some want to be
:18:55. > :19:00.able to apologise and be able to move on. This is Brian Binley,
:19:00. > :19:03.Conservative MP. He says, Andrew Mitchell's actions strengthen the
:19:03. > :19:09.impression that those at the top of the party are a bunch of elitists
:19:09. > :19:14.who think they are better than others. I am not defending the fact
:19:14. > :19:23.Andrew Mitchell lost his temper... You have made that clear, but what
:19:23. > :19:28.do you say to the point that Brian Binley makes. I am not a public
:19:28. > :19:33.school boy, I'm not a millionaire and there are lots of people sat
:19:33. > :19:38.around that table... We should move away from this class ridden
:19:38. > :19:43.critique. We had the man on a bicycle who lost his temper.
:19:43. > :19:49.Whether he was a millionaire or not, you shouldn't have lost his temper.
:19:49. > :19:55.He is an Boris Johnson write about how people whose work at the police
:19:55. > :20:02.should be treated? This is what the mayor of London had to save.
:20:02. > :20:09.people swear at the police, they must expect to be arrested.
:20:09. > :20:15.APPLAUSE. Not just because it is wrong to
:20:15. > :20:21.expect officers to ensure profanities, it is about the
:20:21. > :20:25.experience the culprits. If people feel there are no comebacks, no
:20:25. > :20:30.boundaries and no retribution for the small stuff, they will go on to
:20:30. > :20:34.commit worse crimes. If you swear at the police you should have your
:20:34. > :20:39.collar felt unless you are the Chief Whip? We give discretion to
:20:39. > :20:42.police officers to determine charges along with the Director of
:20:42. > :20:47.Public Prosecutions. I'm not a word the police officers felt it was
:20:47. > :20:52.necessary. Boris Johnson was speaking before this event, that
:20:52. > :20:57.was last year at the party conference. The Police Federation
:20:57. > :21:02.are furious. They are calling for Mr Mitchell's resignation. How did
:21:02. > :21:08.the Tory party end up swearing at the police and getting on the wrong
:21:08. > :21:12.side of them? Mr Mitchell regrets what he said. He has apologised.
:21:12. > :21:22.You have said that 10 times. have asked me the same question 10
:21:22. > :21:23.
:21:23. > :21:27.times. I thought I would be consistent. In not answering them?
:21:27. > :21:31.Consistent in the. Mr Mitchell is very sorry, and we should move on.
:21:31. > :21:36.What about the national planning thing? It was a remarkable success,
:21:36. > :21:40.you got the backing of conservationists and housebuilders.
:21:40. > :21:45.When the George Osborne tell you it wasn't enough and you have to go
:21:46. > :21:49.further? We have not changed that, the national planning policy
:21:49. > :21:54.framework remains. When we made the statement we said we would look at
:21:54. > :21:59.a number of procedural changes to the planning system, and this is
:21:59. > :22:05.part of a process. I wrote to local authorities earlier this year
:22:05. > :22:12.saying I would like them to look at what we call section 106 agreement.
:22:12. > :22:16.40% of them did. Some of them don't like it. This is the leader of
:22:16. > :22:20.Richmond council's, we don't think people should be putting up a
:22:20. > :22:26.neater extensions willy-nilly. We have planning rules and we believe
:22:26. > :22:32.they need to be adhered to. What are you going to do with them?
:22:32. > :22:37.And surprised at his reaction, considering we said we would
:22:37. > :22:42.consult and considering we also said existing safeguards to protect
:22:42. > :22:47.neighbours would be there. Let me give you a quick example - if you
:22:48. > :22:52.have a terraced house and you have a seven metre garden meant. In the
:22:52. > :22:57.present rules you can move out three-metre us or 50% of the garden,
:22:57. > :23:03.which ever is the smaller amount. Under these rules you can move
:23:03. > :23:06.about six metres or 50%. So the difference is half a metre. What
:23:06. > :23:12.will you do with councils, including from your own party who
:23:12. > :23:16.say, we don't want to do this. 54% of the public were behind them,
:23:16. > :23:23.they said the rules will lower the quality of Designed buildings and
:23:23. > :23:27.houses? I don't think it will. It will allow people who want to have
:23:27. > :23:32.their parents live with them, or maybe want to take care of someone
:23:32. > :23:38.within their family, who has particular needs. They might want
:23:38. > :23:44.to put up a conservatory. I recognise it is ironic that on the
:23:44. > :23:49.date I announced this, the Labour Party want to tax this aspiration.
:23:49. > :23:56.The planning officer societies say, if people can build big things in
:23:56. > :24:01.their back garden without permission, it is likely
:24:01. > :24:05.neighbourhood disputes will increase? I am surprised the
:24:05. > :24:12.professionals are saying this before they had even seen the plans,
:24:12. > :24:16.before they have even seen what we are doing. We made it clear
:24:16. > :24:21.existing protection for neighbours will remain. We made it clear it
:24:21. > :24:27.will never be more than half the side of the garden or the extent we
:24:27. > :24:30.allow, whichever is the smaller amount. It is allowing people to
:24:31. > :24:34.extend a single story of her home. It happens all over the country,
:24:35. > :24:38.all of the time and it will make a marginal difference, but an
:24:38. > :24:43.important difference. councillors say they don't want to
:24:43. > :24:47.go this way, and voters don't want to go, since you are meant to
:24:47. > :24:52.believe in localism, will you leave local councils to go of their own
:24:52. > :24:59.way on this? It is the other way round. If they decide not to do
:24:59. > :25:04.this, under Article four arrangement. A member of the public
:25:04. > :25:09.can seek damages against them, so it will be the public taking on the
:25:09. > :25:15.councils if they go against. We will be very reasons, civilised and
:25:16. > :25:23.straightforward. You have repeatedly promised to stop people
:25:23. > :25:29.being fined for putting things out on the wrong day. Why were 3197 of
:25:29. > :25:36.these fines issued in 2011 and 2012? Watch this space, an
:25:36. > :25:41.announcement is due. What will it say? Very soon, and when we
:25:41. > :25:46.announce it, it will be an honour to appear on your fine programme.
:25:46. > :25:51.We will take you up on it. Another Lib Dem Conference and
:25:51. > :25:56.another tax to catch the affluence. The party who brought you the
:25:56. > :26:05.mansion tax and the tycoon tax is back with the mansion tax. What is
:26:05. > :26:08.it and will it work? Here is Giles Dilnot.
:26:08. > :26:11.It says something about our political and financial times we
:26:11. > :26:13.live in that "tax the rich" has gone from something people with
:26:13. > :26:16.placards shouted in the street to something seriously discussed in
:26:16. > :26:19.Government Nick Clegg opened the Lib Dem Conference saying he wanted
:26:19. > :26:29."Lower taxes on work, more on unearned wealth to reward people
:26:29. > :26:30.
:26:30. > :26:34.who put in a proper shift, not those who sit on a fortune". A
:26:34. > :26:40.Wealth Tax has been his theme for weeks, saying he won't accept �10
:26:40. > :26:43.billion of extra cuts coming from Welfare alone. He's long-called for
:26:43. > :26:47.a mansion tax on million pound properties but at the last year's
:26:47. > :26:50.Budget, George Osborne, walked all over that idea. Now it seems the
:26:50. > :26:57.Lib Dems are ready to block any Tory welfare cuts unless they get
:26:57. > :27:01.that wealth tax. Simply read, the Lib Dem tune is 'Money's Too Tight
:27:01. > :27:05.NOT to Mansion'. Economic growth hasn't come out anywhere near as
:27:05. > :27:10.well as expected. Growth is worse, tax revenues are down, spending is
:27:10. > :27:12.up. You need to do more to get rid of the deficit, that's why a year
:27:13. > :27:16.ago we heard there would be significant additional cuts in the
:27:16. > :27:22.next Parliament in order to meet the Fiscal Rules. The Economy has
:27:22. > :27:25.done even worse again over the last year. We're probably going to hear
:27:25. > :27:29.more this December about more cuts certainly in the next Parliament if
:27:29. > :27:35.not this one. We know George Osborne favours a two-year benefits
:27:35. > :27:39.freeze, what's the Lib dems price for that? Exactly what the Liberal
:27:39. > :27:42.Democrats are talking about, we don't know. But for most people the
:27:42. > :27:45.key thing is does this involve a tax on their property, the house
:27:46. > :27:49.that you live in, and does this include a tax on your pension?
:27:49. > :27:51.That's where nearly all the wealth that people have sits and that's
:27:51. > :27:54.the biggest economic and political question surrounding this issue.
:27:54. > :27:59.tend to feel in today's politics that welfare cut and taxing the
:27:59. > :28:02.rich are politically popular, but is that true? To a limited extent
:28:02. > :28:04.yes, unfortunately even if they do manage to get some taxes on the
:28:04. > :28:08.wealthy increased against the wishes of some parts of the
:28:08. > :28:12.Conservative Party. But it goes alongside a further �10 billion of
:28:12. > :28:14.cuts that are being thought about in the Welfare Bill. It's very
:28:15. > :28:19.unlikely that the soft-left voters who've deserted the Liberal
:28:19. > :28:23.Democrats would come back to them if you look at the polling evidence.
:28:23. > :28:28.The rich are taxed the wealthiest 1% of income tax payers pay 30% of
:28:28. > :28:31.all income tax. But any taxation of the rich risks, as many
:28:31. > :28:34.Conservatives argued when calling for the removal the 50p top rate,
:28:34. > :28:44.stifling the very incentive to invest and spend and flow of money
:28:44. > :28:53.
:28:53. > :29:02.you were trying to create. Former Lib Dem MP, Evan Harris and
:29:02. > :29:06.John Redwood go head-to-head. Evan Harris, Nick Clegg said to the
:29:07. > :29:10.BBC this morning there would be more measures to tax at the wealthy
:29:10. > :29:17.this side of the election. But he wouldn't tell us what they are,
:29:17. > :29:21.what should they be? It should be a range of things. A clampdown on tax
:29:21. > :29:26.avoidance, which is mainly by better off people who can afford to
:29:26. > :29:33.explore the schemes. Tax on property, the value of properties
:29:33. > :29:37.over 2 million. Your property cannot go overseas, it is fixed and
:29:37. > :29:43.that is sensible. It cannot be right to have a �3 million mansion
:29:43. > :29:49.on paying the same council tax as a family house next door. I would
:29:49. > :29:54.like to see more taxes on other wealth, because if we sit to this
:29:54. > :30:00.deficit reduction plan... Give me an example? I think things are
:30:00. > :30:05.being worked on. I'm not in Government. On that you part of the
:30:05. > :30:09.federal policy committee? We have a tax Commission looking to what we
:30:09. > :30:14.will put in our manifesto. I am looking at this side of the
:30:14. > :30:19.election? Even the Liberal Democrats, one person does not make
:30:19. > :30:23.the tax policy. We won't accept, and Nick Clegg made this clear,
:30:23. > :30:33.should there be any more demands on the poorest in society, including
:30:33. > :30:37.
:30:37. > :30:41.the working poor who get benefits, What is wrong with asking wealthy
:30:41. > :30:46.to make a considerable contribution? They are paying less
:30:46. > :30:51.tax because they have good ways of getting away from paying the tax
:30:51. > :30:58.and not bothering at all. We need to be smart in the way we tax the
:30:58. > :31:07.rich, tax them at a level in a way which means they stay and play.
:31:07. > :31:13.What about tax wealth? Of course in inheritance tax, they have
:31:13. > :31:18.introduced 7% on stamp duty, but revenues are falling at the top end.
:31:19. > :31:25.The top 1% of income tax earners pay 28% of the total tax at the
:31:25. > :31:31.moment. I might even agree with Mr Harris that we would like that to
:31:31. > :31:37.be higher. In America they pay 37% because the rate is lower. On the
:31:37. > :31:43.Labour, the gap between the rich and poor got wider. If we recognise
:31:43. > :31:47.the inequalities that continued to grow, then the wealthy, who own
:31:47. > :31:56.much more than the percentage they pay in tax, should pay more. That
:31:56. > :32:01.is wrong the wealthiest should pay less than the poor. While did you
:32:01. > :32:06.caught the top margin? That was wrong. I don't think the case that
:32:06. > :32:12.John has made was right and that is the first question - when it raised
:32:12. > :32:17.more? If you asked the academics what the evidence based was for
:32:17. > :32:21.that, that is weak. I think the economic case is the first thing.
:32:21. > :32:25.What we are having here is a discussion about what the
:32:25. > :32:30.differences will be at the next election, and I say bring it on. I
:32:30. > :32:35.don't mind if John Redwood says vote Conservative and we won't be
:32:35. > :32:40.tough on the wealthy, and the Liberal Democrats are saying the
:32:40. > :32:45.wealthy should pay their fair share. We know how to tax the rich in a
:32:45. > :32:50.way that gets more revenue from them, that is the smart thing to do.
:32:50. > :32:57.I am interested in what happens between now and you write in your
:32:57. > :33:02.manifesto, because we have your side saying we made do some of that
:33:02. > :33:08.but we want more tax on the wealthy. The deal will have to be done.
:33:08. > :33:13.course - each Budget is a deal, and so far we have been following the
:33:13. > :33:15.Liberal Democrats approach of big increases in current spending in
:33:15. > :33:19.the first three years of the coalition instead of cutting
:33:19. > :33:22.spending, and we have been following their policy of
:33:22. > :33:31.increasing tax rates. The higher tax rates are bringing in less
:33:31. > :33:38.revenue. 20% of the deficit reduction is coming from spending
:33:38. > :33:44.cuts. No, it is not. Have you looked at the numbers? Spending is
:33:45. > :33:50.up by more than 50 billion so far. The deficit reduction plan involves
:33:50. > :33:56.billions of effective cuts and the ratio over Parliament's is 70 - 30.
:33:56. > :34:01.We don't think there should be any more cuts affecting the poorest
:34:01. > :34:05.part of the community until the wealthiest pay their fair share.
:34:05. > :34:09.don't want cuts on the port either but this government has made a big
:34:09. > :34:17.increase in public spending, which went up by more than 5% in the
:34:17. > :34:21.first year. The figures in August showed it going up by 4.4% over the
:34:21. > :34:25.most recent year, but because the tax rates when talk so much by
:34:25. > :34:34.Labour, instead of collecting more revenue they are collecting less
:34:34. > :34:38.revenue. There is a clear differentiation between the Liberal
:34:39. > :34:44.Democrats on the Conservatives, both now and that the next election.
:34:44. > :34:50.Do you agree current spending has gone up? The art is another debate.
:34:50. > :34:56.It is good to see such harmony in coalition politicians. It is just
:34:56. > :35:02.after 11:35pm. You are watching Sunday Politics., not in 20 minutes,
:35:02. > :35:12.more from the best-connected panel in political television. Well, they
:35:12. > :35:21.
:35:21. > :35:24.Hello and welcome to the London section of Sunday Politics. Coming
:35:24. > :35:29.up later - the Lib Dems have this morning reinforced their opposition
:35:30. > :35:32.to new runways at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted, but might there
:35:32. > :35:37.leader be prepared to take them down a different flight path?
:35:37. > :35:44.Joining me this morning, Nick de Bois and Tom Brake, who has just
:35:44. > :35:49.joined the government of deputy leader of the House of Commons. As
:35:49. > :35:53.we have been hearing, the Lib Dems want focus on the tax affairs of
:35:54. > :35:58.people with assets of more than a million pounds through a beefed-up
:35:58. > :36:04.anti- Affluence Unit at the Inland Revenue. This morning they have
:36:04. > :36:12.another target in their sights, second homeowners, so that councils
:36:12. > :36:17.can crack down on them. This person's decision to buy a second
:36:17. > :36:27.home can prove controversial... But according to some, Londoners are
:36:27. > :36:29.victims. This is the office of Simon Hughes, he says in inner
:36:29. > :36:34.London constituencies like this, second homes are a very serious
:36:34. > :36:38.problem, pushing up the property prices and forcing locals out of
:36:38. > :36:41.the area. So this week at conference, he will be pushing for
:36:42. > :36:46.the Lib Dems to adopt a policy giving local councils the power to
:36:46. > :36:51.designate certain properties as off-limits for second-home owners,
:36:51. > :36:58.but there is a snag. If the council don't want to use the powers,
:36:58. > :37:02.nothing will happen. In Simon Hughes' borough of Southwark, they
:37:02. > :37:07.are happy to see second homeowners coming in and they are not
:37:07. > :37:12.interested in the Lib Dem proposal. How do you go about policing it?
:37:12. > :37:18.What about the foreign investor who uses a front man to buy or acquire
:37:18. > :37:21.the property? Who will be policing that? How can councils do this when
:37:21. > :37:26.there are such a drain on our resources?
:37:26. > :37:36.Sunday Politics spoke to the 12th in a London authorities and City
:37:36. > :37:39.
:37:39. > :37:44.Hall. I only Lewisham expressed any desire to use the powers. At the
:37:44. > :37:48.heart of this debate is the issue of foreign owners, the idea that
:37:48. > :37:53.people from abroad Bar by Inner London crash pads and leaving them
:37:53. > :37:59.empty, whilst everyone else faces a desperate shortage of housing. Last
:38:00. > :38:03.year, 60% of new build houses went to foreign buyers. To put that in
:38:03. > :38:07.context, it is equivalent of the Government's the fording housing
:38:07. > :38:15.budget for the whole of England over four years. Although these
:38:15. > :38:21.figures are often quoted, There is no data that demonstrates this
:38:21. > :38:25.money is being spent on cushy London homes like this. This flat
:38:25. > :38:32.is right in the middle of Simon Hughes' constituency, and was
:38:32. > :38:34.bought by a foreign investor. Rather than sitting empty, it is on
:38:34. > :38:38.the market and available to rent. According to the agents renting the
:38:38. > :38:44.property, there would be almost no building in London if it was not
:38:44. > :38:48.for the foreign influx of cash. Banks are not very willing to lend
:38:48. > :38:52.money to developers, so they have to sell them before they have built
:38:52. > :38:59.them. The only people in the market with money to buy those properties
:38:59. > :39:07.are the Asian investors. proposal does not appear to be a
:39:07. > :39:16.hit with their coalition partners either.
:39:16. > :39:22.Let's hear from Tom Brake and Nick de Bois in a moment, but first
:39:22. > :39:29.Simon Hughes can join us from Brighton. How will you do this? How
:39:29. > :39:36.would it work? Step back for one second, what is the issue in London
:39:37. > :39:43.and surrounding London - the issue is we are desperate for homes,
:39:43. > :39:47.affordable homes, rented housing association homes, and homes to buy.
:39:47. > :39:53.The big challenge, worse than any other part of that country.
:39:53. > :39:57.Secondly, the gap between peoples in comes is greater than anywhere
:39:57. > :40:02.else, and saying step back and let the market sort it out is not an
:40:02. > :40:06.answer. We need to think imaginatively about what to do. The
:40:06. > :40:11.proposal could be done across London by the mayor of London,
:40:11. > :40:15.designating the areas where the pressure on prices is accentuated
:40:15. > :40:19.by the fact that a lot of the sales are going to foreign investors who
:40:20. > :40:25.are paying much higher prices, forcing up the cost of housing in
:40:25. > :40:29.the market. If we tried to make sure that the homes for sale were
:40:29. > :40:34.for people to live in, so the people who were spending the money
:40:34. > :40:39.would be spending to live in them, it takes out a whole range of
:40:39. > :40:44.people whose only interest is in investment, and it would bring the
:40:44. > :40:48.house prices down. I don't buy the arguments that it is technically
:40:48. > :40:53.difficult made by the Labour leader of Southwark Council, who has a
:40:53. > :40:59.vested interest in opposing things that I say because we are in a
:40:59. > :41:04.contest. We have got to have some imaginative solutions. You set
:41:04. > :41:09.designating areas - could you designate individual apartments?
:41:09. > :41:17.That is the first question, but the second question is how can you
:41:17. > :41:21.enforce this? Firstly, we designate areas already in housing in London.
:41:21. > :41:26.Rent is fixed according to different designations called broad
:41:26. > :41:33.market rental areas. It is well used by the land valuation people
:41:33. > :41:38.and councils and so on so that is not difficult. How do you prove
:41:38. > :41:43.someone is using somewhere for a second home? It is very easy.
:41:43. > :41:53.Firstly you discover who the owner is, that is not difficult because
:41:53. > :41:53.
:41:53. > :41:57.it is a public requisite to know that, and they signed a document to
:41:57. > :42:01.prove they live in it. People are told when they buy that they have
:42:01. > :42:09.to buy it for their own use, and if they don't they will be committing
:42:09. > :42:13.an offence, and by definition you have a self policing the -- self-
:42:13. > :42:18.policing system which can be backed up by the authorities. We also have
:42:19. > :42:24.to build more affordable homes, use tax incentives to get land release,
:42:24. > :42:27.stop developers sitting on land which has planning permission, and
:42:27. > :42:31.do the sort of things the government have announced in the
:42:31. > :42:35.last couple of months, which is put more money in the kitty so they can
:42:35. > :42:39.be borrowing for homes. We have got to encourage housing associations
:42:39. > :42:44.by giving them security for their funding so there is a lot of things
:42:44. > :42:49.to do. This is the way for high- pressure areas like London, where
:42:49. > :42:57.you could take heat out of the market and bring the prices down.
:42:58. > :43:03.Thank you. Let's test those ideas firstly with Nick de Bois. Does
:43:03. > :43:07.this seem like a runner for you? is well-intentioned, but crackers.
:43:07. > :43:12.The fact that councils will have to be doing work to enforce this and
:43:12. > :43:16.their reaction is very telling - the reality is how do you determine
:43:16. > :43:23.between someone who was buying a property from abroad and renting it
:43:23. > :43:28.on the market? It is still a place for people to live. Companies buy
:43:28. > :43:33.them so employees can come and live in them. Who will sign the form
:43:33. > :43:39.then? Sometimes they are transient employees. It is not a solution to
:43:39. > :43:43.the housing crisis. Tom Brake, just joining the coalition government,
:43:43. > :43:48.is this one you will want to bang away at straight away? For there is
:43:48. > :43:52.a problem with affordable housing and this could make a contribution.
:43:52. > :43:58.Lewisham expressed an interest in using this, and it may well be that
:43:58. > :44:02.if this was on the table, a tool that councils can use, or the local
:44:02. > :44:08.authorities in London may want to do the same. Do you see any
:44:08. > :44:13.difficulties with it? Clearly any proposal will not be completely
:44:13. > :44:17.straight forward, but Simon set out how this could be enforced. It is a
:44:17. > :44:23.number of one of a possible number of measures that money to implement
:44:23. > :44:28.in London to deal with the housing crisis. Could you see people being
:44:28. > :44:33.penalised or prosecuted for having a second home? I can't see it and
:44:33. > :44:37.the telling thing is that it will be optional for the council's so it
:44:37. > :44:42.is hypothetical, but it is a state intervention that worries me we
:44:42. > :44:46.will end up with different blocks, creating an artificial intervention
:44:46. > :44:50.rocket is not solving the problem. Good intervention would be with the
:44:50. > :44:54.idea that we can give discounts for selling off council housing stock,
:44:54. > :45:00.and different from the past so people buy their council houses and
:45:01. > :45:05.that money is released to buy another house. For another day.
:45:05. > :45:10.Thank you. How to maintain Britain's global hub status in this
:45:10. > :45:13.guise is an issue back on the agenda. For the Lib Dems it opens
:45:13. > :45:18.up an issue they thought they had shelved under the terms of the
:45:18. > :45:28.coalition agreement, but the Conservatives ruled out additional
:45:28. > :45:32.
:45:32. > :45:38.The Prime Minister used a Cabinet reshuffle this month to make the
:45:38. > :45:48.Transport Secretary, Justine Greening, and opponents of airport
:45:48. > :45:52.
:45:52. > :45:56.But the London mayor, Boris Johnson, went on the attack warning there
:45:56. > :46:01.was only one reason to move Justine Greening, and that was to expand
:46:01. > :46:05.Heathrow airport. The Prime Minister has set up a Commission to
:46:05. > :46:11.find a consensual way forward. An interim report will look at the way
:46:11. > :46:17.of using existing one raise and maintain the UK's global hub status.
:46:17. > :46:22.The final report won't be delivered until 2015, so any decision will be
:46:22. > :46:25.for the next Government. Well, this morning the Lib Dems
:46:25. > :46:35.supported a motion to rule out new runways at Heathrow, Stansted and
:46:35. > :46:35.
:46:35. > :46:40.Gatwick. My Conservative colleagues at the departments for Transport,
:46:40. > :46:45.Justine Greening and Theresa Villiers were robust in defending
:46:45. > :46:48.aviation policy, and resisting a third runway at Heathrow. How
:46:48. > :46:51.unfortunate but should have been removed at the last reshuffle,
:46:51. > :46:56.dispatched to look after the developing world and Northern
:46:56. > :46:59.Ireland, respectively. When I spoke to the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick
:46:59. > :47:07.Clegg, earlier this week he was quick to rule out expansion at
:47:07. > :47:12.Heathrow, but he is not now ruling out new runways elsewhere. I am
:47:12. > :47:18.against Heathrow expansion. I always have been and I cannot
:47:18. > :47:22.envisage any circumstances in which I would change my mind. My home in
:47:22. > :47:26.London happens to be under the flight path and I think the
:47:26. > :47:33.proposals don't stand up to the scrutiny. It would be a sticking-
:47:33. > :47:41.plaster solution. The runway fill up very quickly and before you know
:47:41. > :47:47.it we would be looking at a 4th and 5th runway. Do you rule it out?
:47:47. > :47:51.do at Heathrow. The Independent Commission has a wider remit to
:47:51. > :47:56.look at other alternatives. What happens if that Commission finds
:47:56. > :48:00.the preference but the best thing to do is expand Heathrow? I am not
:48:00. > :48:05.going to second guess what the Commission will come out with.
:48:05. > :48:09.There is no evidence at all that the only long-term solution to the
:48:09. > :48:13.challenges of the aviation sector in the UK, is to plaster and
:48:13. > :48:18.additional stretch of west London with Tarmac that will fill up with
:48:18. > :48:23.aeroplanes in a few short years. Were it to do that, would you
:48:23. > :48:29.prepare to state in Coalition or be in Coalition with a party which
:48:29. > :48:36.supported that third runway expansion? You were trying to lure
:48:36. > :48:41.me into a minefield of what if questions. Would you abide by the
:48:41. > :48:45.Commission? This is very clear, I see what you mean. The Commission
:48:45. > :48:49.can come up with any recommendations it wishes which it
:48:49. > :48:54.will submit to the three party leaders. It is for the party
:48:54. > :48:59.leaders to decide how that analysis from the Commission will affect
:48:59. > :49:04.their manifesto. As far as our manifesto is concerned in 2015, we
:49:04. > :49:10.will repeat that we have seen no analysis which in any way alter has
:49:10. > :49:16.argued that a third runway is not a long-term answer to Britain's
:49:16. > :49:19.aviation needs. Do you rule out expansion, new runways at Gatwick
:49:20. > :49:25.and Stansted? I want the Commission to look in the round at this issue
:49:25. > :49:32.of how you create, in the long term, not in the next 10 years, but 30,
:49:32. > :49:36.40, 50 years, this have connection to Asia, Latin America and so on.
:49:36. > :49:40.There are so many different proposals that people think you can
:49:40. > :49:45.join Birmingham with Heathrow, create a new harbour some were up
:49:45. > :49:52.the M1. So you personally would consider a more runways at
:49:52. > :49:56.Stansted? Personally, I think if there are options which just don't
:49:56. > :50:00.require additional capacity in the South East, but maybe mean
:50:00. > :50:06.additional capacity elsewhere, of course it is stuff we will look at.
:50:06. > :50:11.You have got to be driven by the evidence. So that is all clear. Tom,
:50:11. > :50:16.why don't you tell me personally what your hunch might be, where we
:50:16. > :50:20.could be in three years, way you think there should be a hub airport.
:50:20. > :50:25.We know you have been consistently opposed to Heathrow expansion, so
:50:25. > :50:28.what is the answer? You are inviting me to second guess what
:50:28. > :50:34.the Commission is going to be doing over the next three years. I am not
:50:34. > :50:39.going to do that. What we want the Commission to do is look at this in
:50:39. > :50:43.the widest way possible, to take into account of course Aviation,
:50:44. > :50:49.the need for runways and airport, but also to look at sustainability
:50:49. > :50:54.aspects and emissions. I don't want you to second guess that because
:50:54. > :50:58.the Commission says let's speak to the experts. You have not come to
:50:58. > :51:04.this recently, you have looked at it over many years. What is your
:51:04. > :51:08.instinct? Your leader does not feel averse or against Stansted. Do you
:51:08. > :51:14.want it to be Birmingham or do you like Boris Johnson's estuary
:51:14. > :51:20.airport? We made it clear at the conference there is no need for
:51:20. > :51:25.runways in the south-east. Now? There is capacity at those airports,
:51:26. > :51:29.there is capacity at Stansted, Luton and Gatwick. Heathrow cope
:51:29. > :51:36.with almost 50% additional passengers without any extra
:51:36. > :51:39.flights during the Olympics. should they not be a hub airport?
:51:39. > :51:44.Short term, we have the capacity and we should use it more
:51:44. > :51:47.effectively. There is going to be substantial growth in aviation,
:51:47. > :51:53.something like 60% will be allowed and stay within the carbon
:51:53. > :51:57.emissions cap. Longer term we do need to look at the issue of a hub
:51:57. > :52:02.airport, and we are hoping the Commission will come up with
:52:02. > :52:08.sensible suggestions were it could be located. Nick, are you someone
:52:08. > :52:13.who could live with and support Heathrow expansion? First of all I
:52:13. > :52:18.support airport expansion, the case has to be in the south-east. We do
:52:18. > :52:22.more trade with those countries where we have direct airport links.
:52:22. > :52:27.Frankfurt, Amsterdam, they are winning hands down and so we need
:52:27. > :52:31.more capacity. We hope the review will test the thesis an answer in
:52:31. > :52:36.the positive. Second it will look at the options, and they are
:52:36. > :52:40.complex. I cannot answer your question directly, but if the
:52:40. > :52:45.evidence supported a third runway would do the job for the long term,
:52:45. > :52:50.of course that would be something worthy of support. But I am not
:52:50. > :52:55.sure that it will be. With you and your colleagues wait and listen and
:52:55. > :52:58.watch the analysis, and take the recommendations in order of
:52:58. > :53:07.preference from this Commission? Every one will form their own
:53:07. > :53:12.opinion. But there is a strong case for the Boris Ireland as well.
:53:12. > :53:18.Would that work for you? I want a solution, what ever it is, that it
:53:18. > :53:23.will allow us to remain competitive. He would accept a proposal that led
:53:23. > :53:28.to the creation of a new airport in the estuary and meant the closing-
:53:28. > :53:33.down of Heathrow? A of course, that is an over-simplification, you have
:53:33. > :53:38.to look at what you'll do with Heathrow. The complex of trying and
:53:38. > :53:42.even considering transferring the airport, jobs, it is just the
:53:42. > :53:48.implication. We have to wait until after the election for the report,
:53:48. > :53:52.I don't like that. Tom, possibly would you support the idea of an
:53:52. > :53:57.airport hub, more runways at one of the south-east airports, if you
:53:57. > :54:03.closed others, so there was no net increase, but you still have a cup.
:54:03. > :54:07.So Stansted could have three? have made it clear we don't support
:54:07. > :54:12.any net increase in the number of runways. That is a given. We need
:54:12. > :54:16.to look at other airports, in terms of Manchester and Birmingham where
:54:16. > :54:21.they have capacity and they want it to be used. We have lots of light
:54:21. > :54:27.going into Heathrow that up 0.2 point flights which could go to
:54:27. > :54:31.other airports and the South East as an alternative. Much to talk
:54:31. > :54:35.about that in the future. We have to move on.
:54:35. > :54:45.Now safety belts on and hold on to your seats, here's our review of
:54:45. > :54:50.
:54:50. > :54:54.The police officer cleared of killing Ian Tomlinson apogee Pentti
:54:54. > :54:58.protest was sacked for gross misconduct. Findings were denounced
:54:58. > :55:03.as a whitewash by the Tomlinson family.
:55:03. > :55:09.Still basking in Olympic glow, the London mayor did not bite when
:55:09. > :55:15.asked to consider heavy sponsors. When asked what Usain Bolt are
:55:15. > :55:23.eight and the day he ran, what did he eat? Do you know the answer? He
:55:23. > :55:29.ate McDonald's. Noel Olympic glory for G4S, the committee said it
:55:29. > :55:33.should forgo the �54 million management fee. G4S created an
:55:33. > :55:37.eleventh-hour fiasco. Richmond Green is under a known
:55:37. > :55:42.battleground, but could that change? The Conservative council is
:55:42. > :55:52.being rebellious and has voted to oppose the Prime Minister's plans
:55:52. > :55:57.to relax planning rules. Let's start with the revolting
:55:57. > :56:01.people of Richmond. Tom, do you agree or think they are right to
:56:01. > :56:05.object to a kind of free-for-all extensions to property, which could
:56:05. > :56:10.be coming in? I support the idea of localism, so local councils, they
:56:10. > :56:14.have an option to take this up, the Government is offering them. If
:56:14. > :56:20.they feel in their locality it is not appropriate, it is a decision
:56:20. > :56:24.for them. I think it is a bit early to rebel on that. I would like to
:56:24. > :56:28.see the detail. If you see the detail and then you can form an
:56:28. > :56:35.opinion. I am not convinced, it does need some examination on how
:56:36. > :56:39.it would affect my borough, so let's look at the detail. The idea
:56:39. > :56:45.of eight metre expansion, Design and no planning permission, how
:56:45. > :56:49.will people feel about this? It I was to put it like that, a lot of
:56:49. > :56:54.them would be concerned. But you hear ministers saying there are
:56:54. > :57:00.lots of safeguards. I need to see the detailed before we decide where
:57:00. > :57:04.to go. An G4S security, should they can back this management fee, it
:57:04. > :57:09.was far administration did but the security people in place. Should
:57:09. > :57:14.they handed back? The difficulty is, there is a contractual arrangement
:57:14. > :57:17.which guarantees them this fee. However, they may choose that in
:57:17. > :57:25.the circumstances it would be appropriate to hand it back.
:57:25. > :57:30.wonder if they will? I want to ask you, you are an official on the
:57:30. > :57:35.backbench 1922 Committee, is Andrew Mitchell in trouble? I won't speak
:57:35. > :57:38.for the 1922 Committee, but of course he is in difficulty. Because
:57:38. > :57:48.of the swearing, or if its emergence he called the police a
:57:48. > :57:49.
:57:49. > :57:55.pleb? He has apologised. It was disgraceful, I don't think the
:57:55. > :58:00.police should be treated like that. I think the matter now needs to get
:58:00. > :58:03.some context. If there is a disagreement between the two,
:58:03. > :58:13.anything that the mergers which suggests an Judy use those words,
:58:13. > :58:17.
:58:17. > :58:21.it is difficult. If thanks to you We will mark your card for the
:58:21. > :58:25.political week ahead, but first the news with Chris Rodgers.
:58:25. > :58:31.Good afternoon. The Deputy Prime Minister has pledged the very
:58:31. > :58:35.wealthy will be forced to pay more tax to help reduce the budget. He
:58:35. > :58:38.said the Lib Dems wouldn't agree to further welfare cuts unless the
:58:38. > :58:46.Conservatives accept the need for the better off in society to pay
:58:46. > :58:49.their fair share. Turbulent times for the Lib Dems,
:58:50. > :58:52.their poll ratings are dismal, with some putting them in 4th place. But
:58:52. > :58:57.Nick Clegg said the political weather would change when voters
:58:57. > :59:01.realise his party is fighting for greater fairness in an era of belt-
:59:01. > :59:05.tightening. I think the majority of people in this country would find
:59:05. > :59:10.it unacceptable if further fiscal austerity was basically implemented
:59:10. > :59:14.on the backs of the poor. Nick Clegg's party is pushing for a new
:59:14. > :59:17.levy on expensive properties, but he was not keen to divulge what
:59:17. > :59:21.other taxes or were being devised to hit the wealthy, or whether they
:59:21. > :59:26.could be delivered before the next election. Whoever will be in
:59:26. > :59:30.Government in the next Parliament, Labour, Conservative, or in
:59:30. > :59:34.combination, or have to produce further savings. It is an economic
:59:34. > :59:39.fact. It is important we have a debate now in the middle of this
:59:39. > :59:42.Parliament about the principles which will govern that but the
:59:42. > :59:47.Government's will do more to ensure the better off cough up what they
:59:47. > :59:52.already own. A specialist team of tax inspectors has been increased
:59:52. > :59:56.to 300. They have gone over those who are worth more than �2.5
:59:56. > :00:00.million or more. But millionaires will come under scrutiny, too. Nick
:00:00. > :00:05.Clegg, perhaps more than any other politician knows the dangers of
:00:05. > :00:15.promising what he cannot deliver. He has told his party wants to tax
:00:15. > :00:20.the wealthy, now he has to tell How much of this is Nick Clegg
:00:20. > :00:24.trying to please his own supporters? It will please them to
:00:24. > :00:29.hear that he is interested in tax and the wealthy, and he has a team
:00:29. > :00:33.to come more up with some options. Unless he shares more details,
:00:33. > :00:39.voters will be sceptical as to whether he can deliver. He admitted
:00:39. > :00:44.he has been unable to persuade his coalition partners on lunch and tax.
:00:44. > :00:50.He also came up with a new idea on helping young people on to the
:00:50. > :00:56.housing ladder, but again with very little detail. The idea is popular
:00:56. > :01:00.with voters, but what people in the country will be asking is when he
:01:00. > :01:04.will be putting these ideas into practice. And that has died and
:01:04. > :01:07.another has been seriously injured in a skydiving accident near
:01:08. > :01:12.Peterborough. It is thought the men collided
:01:12. > :01:17.approximately 50 ft above the ground, collapsing their parachutes.
:01:17. > :01:22.One man died at the scene, the other is in Addenbrooke's Hospital
:01:22. > :01:25.in Cambridge with severe spinal injuries.
:01:26. > :01:31.How has told could be compensated directly by gas and electricity
:01:31. > :01:35.suppliers who break industry rules, under new plans announced today.
:01:35. > :01:39.The regulator Ofgem will have the power to force energy firms to make
:01:39. > :01:43.direct payments to customers, rather than imposing fines which go
:01:43. > :01:47.to the Treasury. Special church services are being
:01:47. > :01:54.held today in memory of the two police officers killed in Greater
:01:54. > :01:58.Manchester. PC Fiona Bone and PC Nicola Hughes died last Tuesday.
:01:58. > :02:05.Dale Cregan has been charged with murdering the women, as well as two
:02:06. > :02:14.men who were shot earlier this year. There will be more news on BBC One
:02:14. > :02:18.at 6:35pm. Now back to Andrew. It is a Lib Dem
:02:18. > :02:24.seaside Special, but will Nick Clegg - the one in the kiss-me-
:02:24. > :02:33.quick hat - When the cuddly toy on the peer or get sound on his ice-
:02:33. > :02:39.cream? These are the big questions in the week ahead. While we have
:02:39. > :02:44.been on air doing the Eric Pickles interview, Ladbrokes has narrowed
:02:44. > :02:51.the odds that Mr Mitchell will go to 5-4 on. What do you make of
:02:51. > :02:55.that? I think they are wrong. Cabinet ministers have to resign if
:02:55. > :03:00.something new about the story emerges and there has not been
:03:00. > :03:06.anything substantially new, as I said before. Nick was right when he
:03:06. > :03:14.said if Andrew made an apology publicly, that would probably be
:03:14. > :03:20.the end of it. What if we see these contemporaneous note books from the
:03:20. > :03:24.policemen? Then it becomes his word against the police and I suspect he
:03:24. > :03:28.loses that battle. I am also surprised David Cameron has not
:03:28. > :03:33.used this as an opportunity to further the modernisation of the
:03:33. > :03:37.Conservative Party. You can imagine if this happened in opposition in
:03:37. > :03:43.2006 he would have seized on it and said we will not tolerate this in
:03:43. > :03:50.this party and dismissed him. It is obviously harder when you're only
:03:50. > :03:55.appointed him 17 days ago. We have the story is still raging in the
:03:55. > :03:59.paper on the seventh day, the minister has to go, and it is not
:03:59. > :04:04.still raging but I wonder if we should have a new Alastair Campbell
:04:04. > :04:08.role - not necessarily whether it lasts in the papers, but the danger
:04:08. > :04:14.with this story is that it has cut through and makes the point that
:04:14. > :04:16.was made on one of your other programmes which is that David
:04:17. > :04:23.Cameron and George Osborne are arrogant posh boys who don't know
:04:23. > :04:29.the price of milk. If you think that what happened to Patrick
:04:29. > :04:34.Mercer in the row about racism - what he said was very harshly
:04:34. > :04:39.treated for and he is still very bitter about it, and David Cameron
:04:39. > :04:43.reacted immediately to that. He has reacted differently to this. Let's
:04:43. > :04:49.come back to the Lib Dems in Brighton for their annual
:04:49. > :04:55.conference. Nick Clegg wants to bash the rich more, playing to his
:04:55. > :05:05.own Lib Dem party faithful, but in the Sunday Times poll 58% of voters
:05:05. > :05:09.find him untrustworthy, 66% see him as indecisive. There are not enough
:05:09. > :05:13.apologies to pull him back from that. I don't think it will make
:05:13. > :05:19.any difference and other papers have similarly gloomy polls for the
:05:19. > :05:23.Lib Dems. In one poll they are behind UKIP so he has a very
:05:23. > :05:28.difficult task this week. He will do his very best to cheer up his
:05:28. > :05:32.troops and remind them of the benefits of being in coalition.
:05:32. > :05:39.leadership is not in fact, but can he pull back these figures?
:05:39. > :05:49.suspect not. You alluded to the fact that his party is mired in the
:05:49. > :05:52.polls, but there is no immediate prospect of him being disposed of.
:05:52. > :05:58.Tim Farron is not a plausible leader of the major political party
:05:58. > :06:03.for example, so he is fairly safe for the next few years. Vince Cable
:06:03. > :06:06.will be putting down a marker this week. And he has been talking about
:06:07. > :06:14.if there was a vacancy he would love to do it. The problem with
:06:14. > :06:19.Nick Clegg is he is to find structurally by the fact he did one
:06:19. > :06:24.thing in the election and another in the government. If you define
:06:24. > :06:28.structurally, it is difficult pull it back from that. Within the next
:06:28. > :06:32.year, if for example the Lib Dems have difficult local elections in
:06:32. > :06:37.the spring, if his position doesn't come back, I think by next summer
:06:37. > :06:45.his position will look very difficult. I agree, I think it is
:06:45. > :06:47.not if but when. I think he's doomed. There is more going on in
:06:47. > :06:52.the conference than the question of his leadership because something
:06:52. > :06:57.interesting is happening - the slow but real recovery of coalition
:06:57. > :07:01.relations. Last week we saw Nick Clegg and Michael Gove collectively
:07:01. > :07:08.announcing GCSE reforms and there is now the mooted idea of some kind
:07:08. > :07:15.of deal on the wealth tax. Lib Dems accept the strategy of the last
:07:15. > :07:20.year didn't work. Evan Harris wants a lot of differentiation. He will
:07:20. > :07:25.be the one helping to draw up the next manifesto. The signing of the
:07:25. > :07:29.pledge was meant to save him, but Evan Harris was not signed on that.
:07:30. > :07:37.His point was made well by David Laws in the Times yesterday, which
:07:37. > :07:42.is that the danger at is they were basically like Daleks blasting each
:07:42. > :07:45.other. It is interesting about how they're made the movement towards
:07:45. > :07:50.the wealth tax because in the Budget George Osborne was willing
:07:50. > :07:57.to agree to this mansion tax if the top rate of income tax went down to
:07:57. > :08:02.40p. David Cameron veto that mansion tax, which is why we have
:08:02. > :08:06.45p but no mansion tax. I want you to promise me you can make sure you
:08:06. > :08:13.know how to use your machine's next week, it has been at Twitter free
:08:13. > :08:17.zone. You need to provide us with decent kit. We will be back on the
:08:17. > :08:20.daily politics on BBC Two throughout the week with the big
:08:20. > :08:25.speeches from Brighton, reaching a crescendo on Wednesday afternoon