:00:38. > :00:45.Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. George Osborne's fifth
:00:46. > :00:48.Budget will offer more tax relief for the lower paid but not for
:00:49. > :00:50.middle income earners being thrust into the 40p tax bracket. That's our
:00:51. > :00:55.top story. Ed Balls says millions of people
:00:56. > :00:57.aren't feeling any benefit from the recovery. We'll discuss the economy
:00:58. > :01:05.with big political beasts from Labour, the Conservatives, and the
:01:06. > :01:08.Lib Dems. Now that Ed Miliband has effectively ruled out an in/out EU
:01:09. > :01:11.referendum, how does UKIP deal with Tory claims that a vote for UKIP
:01:12. > :01:20.means no chance of a referendum UKIP leader Nigel Farage joins me
:01:21. > :01:24.for the Sunday Interview. In London, restoring confidence in the safety
:01:25. > :01:26.of cycling. The three areas of London getting a cash boost to try
:01:27. > :01:37.something different. And with me as always our top
:01:38. > :01:40.political panel - Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh. They'll be
:01:41. > :01:44.tweeting their thoughts using the hashtag #bbcsp throughout the
:01:45. > :01:47.programme. So, just three months after his last major financial
:01:48. > :01:53.statement, George Osborne will be at the despatch box again on Wednesday,
:01:54. > :01:55.delivering his 2014 Budget. The Chancellor has already previewed his
:01:56. > :02:06.own speech, pledging to build what he calls a "resilient economy". The
:02:07. > :02:10.message I will give in the Budget is the economic plan is working but the
:02:11. > :02:13.job is far from done. We need to build resilient economy which means
:02:14. > :02:17.addressing the long-term weaknesses in Britain that we don't export
:02:18. > :02:21.enough, invest enough, build enough, make enough. Those are the things I
:02:22. > :02:25.will address because we want Britain to earn its way in the world. George
:02:26. > :02:28.Osborne's opposite number, Ed Balls, has also been talking ahead of the
:02:29. > :02:31.Budget. He says not everyone is feeling the benefit of the economic
:02:32. > :02:37.recovery, and again attacked the Government's decision to reduce the
:02:38. > :02:41.top rate of tax from 50 to 45%. George Osborne is only ever tough
:02:42. > :02:44.when he's having a go at the week and the voiceless. Labour is willing
:02:45. > :02:48.to face up to people on the highest incomes and say, I'm sorry,
:02:49. > :02:54.justifying a big tax cut at this time is not fair. We will take away
:02:55. > :02:58.the winter allowance from the richer pensioners, and I think that's the
:02:59. > :03:04.right thing to do. George Osborne might agree, but he's not allowed to
:03:05. > :03:07.say so. That was the Chancellor and the shadow chancellor. Janan, it
:03:08. > :03:11.seems like we are in a race against time. No one argues that the
:03:12. > :03:15.recovery is not under way, in fact it looks quite strong after a long
:03:16. > :03:21.wait, but will it feed through to the living standards of ordinary
:03:22. > :03:25.people in time for the May election? They only have 14 months to do it.
:03:26. > :03:29.The big economic variable is business investment. Even during the
:03:30. > :03:33.downturn, businesses hoarded a lot of cash. The question is, are they
:03:34. > :03:38.confident enough to release that into investment and wages? Taking on
:03:39. > :03:41.new people, giving them higher pay settlements. That could make the
:03:42. > :03:47.difference and the country will feel more prosperous and this time next
:03:48. > :03:51.year. But come to think of it, it strikes me, that how anticipated it
:03:52. > :03:54.is, it's the least talked about Budget for many years. I think that
:03:55. > :03:59.is because the economy has settled down a bit, but also because people
:04:00. > :04:03.have got used to the idea that there is no such thing as a giveaway.
:04:04. > :04:08.Anything that is a tax cut will be taken away as a tax rise or spending
:04:09. > :04:11.cut. That's true during the good times but during fiscal
:04:12. > :04:18.consolidation, it's avoidable. - unavoidable. There is a plus and
:04:19. > :04:22.minus for the Conservatives here. 49% of people think the government
:04:23. > :04:24.is on roughly the right course, but only 16% think that their financial
:04:25. > :04:30.circumstances will improve this year. It will be a tough one for the
:04:31. > :04:36.Labour Party to respond to. I agree with Janan. Everyone seems bored
:04:37. > :04:41.with the run-up to the Budget. The front page of the Sunday Times was
:04:42. > :04:46.about fox hunting, the front page of the Sunday Telegraph was about EU
:04:47. > :04:51.renegotiation. Maybe we are saying this because there have not been
:04:52. > :04:56.many leaks. We have got used to them, and most of the George Osborne
:04:57. > :05:00.chat on Twitter was about how long his tie was. Freakishly long. I
:05:01. > :05:07.wouldn't dare to speculate why. Anything we should read into that? I
:05:08. > :05:14.don't know. For a long while there was no recovery, then it was it is a
:05:15. > :05:17.weak recovery, and now, all right, it's strong but not reaching
:05:18. > :05:23.everyone in the country. That is where we are in the debate. That's
:05:24. > :05:29.right, and the Conservative MPs are so anxious and they are making
:05:30. > :05:33.George Osborne announcing the rays in the personal allowance will go
:05:34. > :05:41.up, saying it might go up to 10 750 from next year, and Conservative MPs
:05:42. > :05:45.say that that's OK but we need to think about the middle voters.
:05:46. > :05:48.People are saying the economy is recovering but no one is feeling it
:05:49. > :05:52.in their pocket. These are people snagged in at a 40p tax rate. The
:05:53. > :05:57.Tories are saying these are our people and we have to get to them.
:05:58. > :06:03.He has given the Lib Dems more than they could have hoped for on raising
:06:04. > :06:07.the threshold. Why is he not saying we have done a bit for you, now we
:06:08. > :06:14.have to look after our people and get some of these people out of that
:06:15. > :06:16.40% bracket? Partly because the Lib Dems have asked for it so
:06:17. > :06:20.insistently behind-the-scenes. Somebody from the Treasury this week
:06:21. > :06:23.told me that these debates behind the scenes between the Lib Dems and
:06:24. > :06:28.Tories are incredibly tenacious and get more so every year. The Lib Dems
:06:29. > :06:33.have been insistent about going further on the threshold. The second
:06:34. > :06:38.reason is that the Tories think the issue can work for them in the next
:06:39. > :06:42.election. They can take the credit. If they enthusiastically going to
:06:43. > :06:47.?12,000 and make it a manifesto pledge, they can claim ownership of
:06:48. > :06:51.the policy. The Liberal Democrats want to take it to 12,500, which
:06:52. > :06:55.means you are getting into minimum wage territory. It's incredibly
:06:56. > :07:01.expensive and the Tories are saying that maybe you would be looking at
:07:02. > :07:05.the 40p rate. The Tories have played as well. There have been authorised
:07:06. > :07:08.briefings about the 40p rate, and Cameron and Osborne have said that
:07:09. > :07:11.their priority was helping the lowest paid which is a useful
:07:12. > :07:17.statement to make and it appeals to the UKIP voters who are the
:07:18. > :07:21.blue-collar workers. And we are right, the economy will determine
:07:22. > :07:25.the next election? You assume so. It was ever that is. It didn't in 992
:07:26. > :07:35.or 1987. It did in 1992. Ed Miliband's announcement last week
:07:36. > :07:38.that a Labour government would not hold a referendum on Europe unless
:07:39. > :07:40.there's another transfer of powers from Britain to Brussels has
:07:41. > :07:45.certainly clarified matters. UKIP say it just shows the mainstream
:07:46. > :07:48.parties can't be trusted. The Conservatives think it means UKIP
:07:49. > :07:51.voters might now flock back to them as the only realistic chance of
:07:52. > :07:55.securing a referendum. Giles Dilnot reports.
:07:56. > :07:59.When it comes to Europe and Britain's relation to it, the
:08:00. > :08:04.question is whether the answer is answered by a question. To be in or
:08:05. > :08:06.not to be in, that is the question, and our politicians have seemed less
:08:07. > :08:10.interested in question itself but whether they want to let us answer
:08:11. > :08:22.it. Labour clarified their position last week. There will be no transfer
:08:23. > :08:25.of powers without an in out referendum, without a clear choice
:08:26. > :08:31.as to whether Britain will stay in the EU. That seems yes to a
:08:32. > :08:35.referendum, but hold on. I believe it is unlikely that this lock will
:08:36. > :08:38.be used in the next Parliament. So that's a no. The Conservatives say
:08:39. > :08:48.yes to asking, in 2017, if re-elected, but haven't always. In
:08:49. > :08:50.2011, 81 Tory MPs defied the PM by voting for a referendum on EU
:08:51. > :08:54.membership: the largest rebellion against a Tory prime minister over
:08:55. > :09:04.Europe. Prompted by a petition from over 100,000 members of the public.
:09:05. > :09:06.The wrong question at the wrong time said the Foreign Secretary of a
:09:07. > :09:09.coalition Government including selfie-conciously-pro European Lib
:09:10. > :09:12.Dems, who had a referendum pledge in their 2010 manifesto, but only in
:09:13. > :09:15.certain circumstances. So we have the newspapers, and the public
:09:16. > :09:18.meeting leaflets. UKIP have always wanted the question put regardless.
:09:19. > :09:26.But Labour's new position may change things and The Conservatives think
:09:27. > :09:32.so. I think it does, because, you know, we are saying very clearly,
:09:33. > :09:37.like UKIP, we want a referendum but only a Conservative government can
:09:38. > :09:42.deliver it because most suffer largest would say it is possible in
:09:43. > :09:51.the first past the post system to have a UKIP government --
:09:52. > :09:59.sophologists. And then it's easy for as to say that if a UKIP vote lets
:10:00. > :10:04.in a Conservative government, then they won't hold a referendum. UKIP
:10:05. > :10:08.seem undaunted by the clarifications of the other parties, campaigning
:10:09. > :10:11.like the rest but with a "tell it how it is, just saying what you re
:10:12. > :10:17.thinking, we aren't like them" attitude. They seem more worried
:10:18. > :10:22.about us and what we want, and I don't see that in the other parties.
:10:23. > :10:28.In parts of the UK, like South Essex, it's a message they think is
:10:29. > :10:32.working. They are taking the voters for granted again and people have
:10:33. > :10:39.had enough. People are angry, they see people saying they will get a
:10:40. > :10:44.vote on the European Union, but then it just comes down the road. They
:10:45. > :10:49.were quick to capitalise on the announcements, saying only the
:10:50. > :10:55.Conservatives will give you say so does it change things? Not really.
:10:56. > :10:59.We have been talking about a referendum and having a debate on
:11:00. > :11:03.the European Union for years, and the other parties are playing catch
:11:04. > :11:07.up. They have a trust issue. Nobody trusts them on the European Union
:11:08. > :11:10.and that is why people come to us. Who the average UKIP voter is, or
:11:11. > :11:13.how they voted before is complicated, and what dent they
:11:14. > :11:15.might make on Conservative and Labour votes in 2015 is trickier
:11:16. > :11:24.still, but someone's been crunching the numbers anyway. We reckon it is
:11:25. > :11:27.between 25 and 30% of the electorate broadly share the UKIP motivation,
:11:28. > :11:31.so to top out at that level would be difficult. That's an awful lot of
:11:32. > :11:36.voters, but it's not the majority, and this is the reason why the main
:11:37. > :11:39.parties can't afford to just openly appealed to the UKIP electorate too
:11:40. > :11:45.hard because the elections are won and lost amongst the other 70%, the
:11:46. > :11:50.middle-class, the graduate, the younger, ethnic minorities. An
:11:51. > :11:53.appeal to the values of UKIP voters will alienate some of the other
:11:54. > :11:57.groups, and they are arguably more significant in winning the election.
:11:58. > :12:00.Whatever, the numbers UKIPers seem doggedly determined to dig away at
:12:01. > :12:03.any support the other parties have previously enjoyed.
:12:04. > :12:06.Giles Dilnot reporting. UKIP's leader, Nigel Farage, joins me now
:12:07. > :12:23.for the Sunday Interview. Nigel Farage, welcome back. Good
:12:24. > :12:26.morning. So the Labour Party has shot a fox. If Ed Miliband is the
:12:27. > :12:30.next by Minister, there will not be a referendum customer there's a long
:12:31. > :12:34.way between now and the next election, and Conservative party
:12:35. > :12:37.jobs and changes. We had a cast iron guarantee of a referendum from
:12:38. > :12:41.camera, then he three line whip people to vote against it, and now
:12:42. > :12:45.they are for it. What the Labour Party has done is open up a huge
:12:46. > :12:48.blank to us, and that is what we will go for in the European
:12:49. > :12:52.elections this coming year in May. I think there is a very strong chance
:12:53. > :12:56.that Labour will match the Conservative pledge by the next
:12:57. > :13:01.general election. There may be, but at the moment he has ruled it out,
:13:02. > :13:04.and if he does not change his mind and goes into the election with the
:13:05. > :13:11.policy as it is, the only chance of a referendum is a Tory government.
:13:12. > :13:15.If you think the Tories will form a majority, which I think is unlikely.
:13:16. > :13:18.Remember, two thirds of our voters would never vote Conservative
:13:19. > :13:23.anyway. There is still this line of questioning that assumes UKIP voters
:13:24. > :13:26.are middle-class Tories. We have some voters like that, but most of
:13:27. > :13:32.them are coming to us from Labour, some from the Lib Dems and a lot of
:13:33. > :13:38.nonvoters. But it come the election you failed to change Mr Miliband's
:13:39. > :13:41.line, I repeat, the only chance of a referendum, if you want a
:13:42. > :13:45.referendum, if that is what matters, and the polls suggest it doesn't
:13:46. > :13:48.matter to that many people, but if that is what matters, the only way
:13:49. > :13:53.you can get one is to vote Conservative. No, because you have a
:13:54. > :13:57.situation in key marginals, especially where all three parties
:13:58. > :14:01.are getting a good share, where we will see, and this depends a lot on
:14:02. > :14:08.the local elections and the European elections, there are target
:14:09. > :14:11.constituencies where UKIP has a reasonably good chance of winning a
:14:12. > :14:18.seat, and that will change the agenda. Every vote for UKIP makes a
:14:19. > :14:21.Tory government less likely. Arab voters are not Tory. Only a third of
:14:22. > :14:28.the UKIP boat comes from the Conservative party -- our voters are
:14:29. > :14:32.not Tory. -- the UKIP vote. It was mentioned earlier, about blue-collar
:14:33. > :14:34.voters. We pick up far more Labour Party and nonvoters than
:14:35. > :14:38.conservatives. On the balance of what the effect of the UKIP boat
:14:39. > :14:42.is, the Tories should worry about us, they should worry about the fact
:14:43. > :14:47.they have lost faith with their own electorate. Even if there is a
:14:48. > :14:50.minority Ed Miliband government it means no referendum. Labour and the
:14:51. > :14:55.Liberal Democrats are now at one on the matter. The next election is in
:14:56. > :14:59.a few weeks time, the European elections. What happens in those
:15:00. > :15:03.elections will likely change the party stands and position on a
:15:04. > :15:07.referendum. The fact that Ed Miliband has said this means, for
:15:08. > :15:11.us, our big target on the 22nd of May will be the Labour voters in the
:15:12. > :15:15.Midlands and northern cities, and if we do hammer into that boat and we
:15:16. > :15:24.are able to beat Labour on the day, there's a good chance of their
:15:25. > :15:32.policy changing. One poll this morning suggests Labour is close to
:15:33. > :15:39.you at 28, the Conservatives down at 21, the Lib Dems down at eight. You
:15:40. > :15:42.are taking votes from the Conservatives and the Liberal
:15:43. > :15:50.Democrats. We are certainly taking votes from the Lib Dems but that is
:15:51. > :15:55.comparing the poll with one year ago when I don't think most people knew
:15:56. > :16:00.what the question really was. You seem to be in an impossible position
:16:01. > :16:06.because the better you do in a general election, the less chance
:16:07. > :16:11.there will be a referendum by 2 20. No, look at the numbers. Only a
:16:12. > :16:17.third of our voters are Conservatives. When we have polled
:16:18. > :16:21.voters that have come to us, we asked them if there was no UKIP
:16:22. > :16:26.candidate who would you vote for, less than one in five said
:16:27. > :16:31.Conservative. Less than one in five UKIP voters would be tempted to vote
:16:32. > :16:37.Conservative under any circumstances so the arithmetic does not suggest
:16:38. > :16:40.we are the Conservative problem it suggests we are hurting all of the
:16:41. > :16:45.parties and the reason the Tories are in trouble is because they have
:16:46. > :16:52.lost their traditional base. Why do you think Nick Clegg is debating
:16:53. > :17:00.Europe? I think they are in trouble, at 8% they could be wiped
:17:01. > :17:05.out, they could go from 12 to nothing and I think it is a chance
:17:06. > :17:11.for Nick Clegg to raise their profile. They are fringe party with
:17:12. > :17:16.respect to this contest so I see why he wants to do it. One of our big
:17:17. > :17:20.criticisms is that we have not been able to have a full debate on
:17:21. > :17:25.national television on the alternatives of the European Union
:17:26. > :17:38.so I am looking forward to it. How are you preparing? I think you can
:17:39. > :17:45.be over scripted with these things. Are you not doing mock debates? No,
:17:46. > :17:49.I am checking my facts and figures and making sure that I can show the
:17:50. > :17:55.British people that in terms of jobs, we would be far better off not
:17:56. > :17:59.being within the European Union not being within its rule book, not
:18:00. > :18:05.suffering from some of the green taxes they are putting on the
:18:06. > :18:11.manufacturing industry. The idea that 3 million jobs are at risk I
:18:12. > :18:17.want to show why that is nonsense. Who do you think is playing you in
:18:18. > :18:24.their mock debates? They probably went to the pub and found someone!
:18:25. > :18:28.We will see. You have promised to do whatever it takes to fund your
:18:29. > :18:35.European election campaign, how much has been given so far? Just give it
:18:36. > :18:41.a few weeks and you will see what Paul is planning to do. He has made
:18:42. > :18:50.a substantial investment in the campaign already. How much? I'm not
:18:51. > :18:54.answering that for now. We are well on our way to a properly funded
:18:55. > :19:01.campaign and our big target will be the big cities and the working vote
:19:02. > :19:04.in those communities. Your deputy chairman Neil Hamilton is another
:19:05. > :19:10.former Tory, he says so far we haven't seen the colour of his
:19:11. > :19:17.money. Exactly two weeks ago, and things have changed since then. Mr
:19:18. > :19:26.Sykes has written a cheque since then? Yes. This morning's papers
:19:27. > :19:33.saying you will be asking MEPs to contribute ?50,000 each, is that
:19:34. > :19:40.true? Over the next five years, yes. Not for the European campaign. So
:19:41. > :19:45.lack of money will not be an excuse. We will have a properly funded
:19:46. > :19:49.campaign. How we raise the kind of money needed to fund the general
:19:50. > :20:00.election afterwards is another question. What is UKIP's policy on
:20:01. > :20:05.paying family members? We don't encourage it and I didn't employ any
:20:06. > :20:11.family member for years. My wife ended up doing the job and paid for
:20:12. > :20:18.the first seven years of my job She is paid now? Until May, then she
:20:19. > :20:26.comes off the payroll am which leaves me with a huge problem. In
:20:27. > :20:32.2004 you said, UKIP MEPs will not employ wives and there will be no
:20:33. > :20:36.exceptions. An exception was made because I became leader of the
:20:37. > :20:40.National party as well as a leader of the group in European
:20:41. > :20:44.Parliament. Things do change in life, and you can criticise me for
:20:45. > :20:50.whatever you like, but I cannot be criticised for not having a big
:20:51. > :20:59.enough workload. No, but you didn't employ your wife when you had told
:21:00. > :21:02.others not to do it your party. Nobody else in my party has a big
:21:03. > :21:07.job in Europe and the UK. We made the exception for this because of
:21:08. > :21:12.very unusual circumstances. It also looks like there was a monetary
:21:13. > :21:19.calculation. Listen to this clip from a BBC documentary in 2000. It
:21:20. > :21:25.is a good job. I worked it out because so much of what you get is
:21:26. > :21:28.after tax that if you used the secretarial allowances to pay your
:21:29. > :21:36.wife on top of the other games you can play, I reckon this job in
:21:37. > :21:39.Stirling term is over a quarter of ?1 million a year. That is what you
:21:40. > :21:46.would need to earn working for Goldman Sachs or someone like that.
:21:47. > :21:49.I agree with that. More importantly the way you really make money in the
:21:50. > :21:54.European Parliament is being their five days a week, because you sign
:21:55. > :22:00.in every day, you get 300 euros every day, and that is how people
:22:01. > :22:05.maxed out. The criticism of me is that I am not there enough so
:22:06. > :22:09.whatever good or bad I have done in the European Parliament, financial
:22:10. > :22:13.gain has not been one of the benefits. There have been
:22:14. > :22:19.allegations of you also employing a former mistress on the same European
:22:20. > :22:24.Parliamentary allowance, you deny that? I am very upset with the BBC
:22:25. > :22:29.coverage of this. The ten o'clock news run this as a story without
:22:30. > :22:33.explaining that that allegation was made using Parliamentary privilege
:22:34. > :22:41.by somebody on bail facing serious fraud charges. I thought that was
:22:42. > :22:49.pretty poor. You have a chance to do that and you deny you have employed
:22:50. > :22:53.a former mistress? Yes, but if you look at many of the things said over
:22:54. > :22:57.the last week, I think it is becoming pretty clear to voters that
:22:58. > :23:04.the establishment are becoming terrified of UKIP and they will use
:23:05. > :23:11.anything they can find to do us down in public. Is an MEP employs his
:23:12. > :23:17.wife and his former mistress, that would be resigning matter, wouldn't
:23:18. > :23:21.it? Yes, particularly if the assumption was that money was being
:23:22. > :23:28.taped for work but was not being done. Who do you think is behind
:23:29. > :23:34.these stories? It is all about negative, it is all about attacks,
:23:35. > :23:38.but I don't think it is actually going to work because so much of
:23:39. > :23:43.what has been said in the last week is nonsense. A reputable daily
:23:44. > :23:48.newspaper said I shouldn't be trusted because I had stored six
:23:49. > :23:52.times for the Conservative party, I have never even stored in a local
:23:53. > :23:57.council election. I think if you keep kicking an underdog, it will
:23:58. > :24:08.make the British people rally around us. Is it the Conservatives? Yes,
:24:09. > :24:13.and the idea that all of our voters are retired colonels is simply not
:24:14. > :24:23.true. We get some voters from the Labour side as well. Would you
:24:24. > :24:28.consider standing in a Labour seat if you are so sure you are getting
:24:29. > :24:37.Labour votes? Yes, but the key for UKIP is that it has to be marginal.
:24:38. > :24:44.Just for your own future, if you fail to win a single soul -- single
:24:45. > :24:49.seat in the general election, if Ed Miliband fails to win an outright
:24:50. > :24:54.majority, will you stand down as UKIP leader? I would think within
:24:55. > :24:59.about 12 hours, yes. I will have failed, I got into politics not
:25:00. > :25:05.because I wanted a career in politics, far from it. I did it
:25:06. > :25:08.because I don't think this European entanglement is right for our
:25:09. > :25:13.country. I think a lot of people have woken up to the idea we have
:25:14. > :25:20.lost control of our borders and now is the moment for UKIP to achieve
:25:21. > :25:25.what it set out to do. Will UKIP continue without you if you stand
:25:26. > :25:35.down? Of course it will. I know that everyone says it is a one-man band
:25:36. > :25:37.but it is far from that. We have had some painful moments, getting rid of
:25:38. > :25:42.old UKIP, new UKIP is more professional, less angry and it is
:25:43. > :25:47.going places. Nigel Farage, thank you for being with us.
:25:48. > :25:50.So, what else should we be looking out for in Wednesday's Budget
:25:51. > :25:52.statement? We've compiled a Sunday Politics guide to the Chancellor's
:25:53. > :25:55.likely announcements. Eyes down everyone, it's time for a
:25:56. > :25:59.bit of budget bingo. Let's see what we will get from the man who lives
:26:00. > :26:02.at legs 11. Despite some good news on the economy, George Osborne says
:26:03. > :26:06.that this will be a Budget of hard truths with more pain ahead in order
:26:07. > :26:08.to get the public finances back under control. But many in the
:26:09. > :26:11.Conservative party, including the former chancellor Norman Lamont
:26:12. > :26:14.want Mr Osborne to help the middle classes by doing something about the
:26:15. > :26:21.4.4 million people who fall into the 40% bracket. Around one million more
:26:22. > :26:24.people pay tax at that rate compared to 2010 because the higher tax
:26:25. > :26:29.threshold hasn't increased in line with inflation. Mr Osborne has
:26:30. > :26:33.indicated he might tackle the issue in the next Conservative manifesto,
:26:34. > :26:39.but for now he is focused on helping the low paid. It's likely we will
:26:40. > :26:44.see another increase in the amount you can earn before being taxed
:26:45. > :26:47.perhaps up another ?500 to ?10, 00. The Chancellor is going to flesh out
:26:48. > :26:50.the details of a tax break for childcare payments, and there could
:26:51. > :27:07.be cries of 'house' with the promise of more help for the building
:27:08. > :27:11.industry. The Help To Buy scheme will be extended to 2020 and there
:27:12. > :27:14.could be the go-ahead for the first Garden City in 40 years. Finally,
:27:15. > :27:16.bingo regulars could be celebrating a full house with a possible cut in
:27:17. > :27:19.bingo tax. And I've been joined in the studio
:27:20. > :27:21.by the former Conservative chancellor Norman Lamont, in Salford
:27:22. > :27:24.by the former Labour Cabinet minister Hazel Blears, and in
:27:25. > :27:27.Aberdeen by the Lib Dem deputy leader, Malcolm Bruce. Let me come
:27:28. > :27:34.to Norman Lamont first, you and another former Tory Chancellor,
:27:35. > :27:44.Nigel Lawson, have called in the fall in the threshold for the rate
:27:45. > :27:49.at which the 40p clicks in. I would have preferred an adjustment in the
:27:50. > :27:54.Budget but I agree with what you are saying, it sounds like the
:27:55. > :27:59.Chancellor will not do that. My main point is that you cannot go on
:28:00. > :28:02.forever and forever increasing the personal allowance and not
:28:03. > :28:08.increasing the 40% tax threshold because you are driving more and
:28:09. > :28:11.more people into that band. It is an expensive policy because in order to
:28:12. > :28:17.keep the number of people not paying tax constant, you have to keep
:28:18. > :28:24.adjusting it each year. When this was introduced by Nigel Lawson, it
:28:25. > :28:31.applied to one in 20 people, the 40% rate, it now applies to one in six
:28:32. > :28:35.people. By next year, there will be 6 million people paying base. Why do
:28:36. > :28:41.you think your Tory colleagues seem happy to go along with the Lib Dems
:28:42. > :28:55.and target whatever money there is for tax cuts rather -- on the lower
:28:56. > :29:01.paid rather than the middle incomes? They are not helping the lowest
:29:02. > :29:04.paid. If you wanted to really help the lowest paid people you would
:29:05. > :29:11.raise the threshold for national insurance contributions, which is
:29:12. > :29:20.around ?6,000. Is it the Lib Dems stopping any rise in the 40p
:29:21. > :29:26.threshold? We are concentrating on raising the lower threshold because
:29:27. > :29:32.we believe that is the way to help those on lower incomes. Whilst they
:29:33. > :29:35.haven't benefited as much as the lower paid they have participated
:29:36. > :29:40.and I think people understand right now, if you were going to prioritise
:29:41. > :29:45.the high earners, when we are still trying to help those on lower and
:29:46. > :29:49.middle incomes who haven't enjoyed great pay increases but have got the
:29:50. > :29:54.benefit of these tax increases, that is why we would like to do it for
:29:55. > :30:01.the minimum wage level. But the poorest will not benefit at all The
:30:02. > :30:06.poorest 16% already don't pay tax. Why don't you increase the threshold
:30:07. > :30:15.at which National Insurance starts? You only have two earned ?5,500
:30:16. > :30:19.before you start to pay it. You ve got to remember that the raising of
:30:20. > :30:24.the threshold to ?10,000 or more was something the Tories said we could
:30:25. > :30:31.not afford. Why are you continuing to do it? If you want to help the
:30:32. > :30:37.working poor, the way would be to take the lowest out of national
:30:38. > :30:41.insurance. The view we take is they are benefiting, and have benefited
:30:42. > :30:46.from, the raising of the tax threshold. You now have to earn
:30:47. > :30:51.?10,000, we hope eventually 12, 00, and that means only people on very
:30:52. > :30:54.low wages. If you opt out of national insurance, you're saying to
:30:55. > :31:00.people that you make no contribution to the welfare system, so there is a
:31:01. > :31:05.general principle that people should participate and paying, and also
:31:06. > :31:08.claim when they need something out. We thought raising the threshold was
:31:09. > :31:11.simple and effective at a time of economic austerity and the right way
:31:12. > :31:18.to deliver a helpful support to welcoming people. -- working people.
:31:19. > :31:22.With the Labour Party continue to raise the threshold, or do they
:31:23. > :31:28.think there is a case that there are too many people being dragged into
:31:29. > :31:31.the 40p tax bracket? If Norman Lamont thinks this is the right time
:31:32. > :31:35.to benefit people who are reasonably well off rather than those who are
:31:36. > :31:39.struggling to make ends meet, then genuinely, I say it respectfully, I
:31:40. > :31:43.don't think he's living in the world the rest of us are. Most working
:31:44. > :31:47.people have seen their wages effectively reduced by about ?1 00
:31:48. > :31:54.because they have been frozen, so the right thing is to help people on
:31:55. > :31:57.modest incomes. I also understand that if the 40% threshold went up,
:31:58. > :32:02.the people who would benefit the most, as ever, are the people who
:32:03. > :32:06.are really well off, not the people in the middle. The Conservatives
:32:07. > :32:11.have already reduced the 50p tax on people over ?150,000 a year, and we
:32:12. > :32:15.have to concentrate on the people going out to work, doing their best
:32:16. > :32:18.to bring their children up and have a decent life and need a bit of
:32:19. > :32:22.help. I think raising the threshold is a good thing. We would bring back
:32:23. > :32:29.the 10p tax, which we should never have abolished, and do things with
:32:30. > :32:32.regard to childcare. At the moment, childcare costs the average family
:32:33. > :32:36.as much as their mortgage, for goodness sake. We would give 25
:32:37. > :32:39.hours free childcare for youngsters over three and four years old. That
:32:40. > :32:47.would be a massive boost the working families. We are talking about
:32:48. > :32:51.nurses, tube drivers, warrant officers in the army. There are many
:32:52. > :32:56.people who are not well off but have been squeezed in the way everybody
:32:57. > :33:00.has been squeezed and they are finding it continuing. I am stunned
:33:01. > :33:03.by Malcolm's argument where everybody should pay something so
:33:04. > :33:06.you should not take people out of national insurance, but the
:33:07. > :33:12.principle doesn't apply to income tax. You can stand that argument on
:33:13. > :33:15.its head and apply it to income tax. Most people don't see a difference
:33:16. > :33:20.between income tax and national insurance, it's the same thing to
:33:21. > :33:23.most people. It is true that it isn't really an insurance fund and
:33:24. > :33:29.there is an argument from merging both of them. But we have
:33:30. > :33:35.concentrated on a simple tax proposition. Norman is ignoring the
:33:36. > :33:39.fact the people on the 40% rate have benefited by the raising of the
:33:40. > :33:42.personal allowance. To say they have been squeezed is unfair. The
:33:43. > :33:48.calculation is that an ordinary taxpayer will be ?700 better off at
:33:49. > :33:52.the current threshold, and about ?500 better off at the higher rate.
:33:53. > :33:57.It is misleading to say the better off we'll be paying more. I agree
:33:58. > :34:00.with Hazel, if you go to the 40 rate, it's the higher earners who
:34:01. > :34:05.benefit the most, and we won't do that when the economy is not where
:34:06. > :34:12.it was before the crash. How much will the lower paid be better off if
:34:13. > :34:17.you reintroduce the 10p rate? Significantly better off. I don t
:34:18. > :34:22.have the figure myself, but they'd be significantly better off and the
:34:23. > :34:26.Budget should be a mixture of measures to help people who work
:34:27. > :34:30.hard. That is why I think the childcare issue has to be
:34:31. > :34:36.addressed. ?100 a week of the people with childcare payments. It is a
:34:37. > :34:40.massive issue. We want the job is guaranteed to get young people back
:34:41. > :34:43.into work. There's been hardly any discussion about that, and we have
:34:44. > :34:46.nearly 1 million people who have been out of work for six months or
:34:47. > :34:54.more, and as a country we need to do something to help that. 350,000
:34:55. > :34:56.full-time students, so it is a misleading figure. It is not a
:34:57. > :35:03.million including full-time students. All parties do this. It
:35:04. > :35:06.sounds to me, Malcolm Bruce, you have more in common with the Labour
:35:07. > :35:10.Party than you do with the Conservatives. You want an annual
:35:11. > :35:14.levy on houses over ?2 million, so does Labour. A lot of your members
:35:15. > :35:18.want to scrap the so-called bedroom tax and so does labour. You think
:35:19. > :35:22.every teacher should have a teaching qualification, and so does Labour.
:35:23. > :35:27.Your policy on the EU referendum is the same. Let me go on. And you want
:35:28. > :35:32.to scrap the winter fuel allowance for wealthy pensioners. We want to
:35:33. > :35:35.make sure we get the public finances in order and we have grave
:35:36. > :35:45.reservations about the Labour Party promises. But they followed your
:35:46. > :35:49.spending plans in the first year. The point we are making is we can
:35:50. > :35:52.make a fairer society and stronger economy if you keep the public
:35:53. > :35:56.finances moving towards balance We don't think the Labour Party will
:35:57. > :35:59.take a stand that track. It is interesting that the Labour Party
:36:00. > :36:05.want to introduce the 10p rate that Gordon Brown abolished. We consider
:36:06. > :36:12.that before we can -- committed to the 0% rate -- we considered that.
:36:13. > :36:17.It makes a complicated system difficult and we think it's better
:36:18. > :36:21.doing it that way. As a fiscal conservative, why are you talking
:36:22. > :36:24.about any tax cuts when the deficit is over ?100 billion, and
:36:25. > :36:29.effectively, anything you propose today can only be financed by more
:36:30. > :36:34.borrowing. I totally agree with you. I said that this week. I thought the
:36:35. > :36:38.best thing would have no Budget The main thing is to get the deficit
:36:39. > :36:41.down. My argument is is that you have an adjustment in tax rates it
:36:42. > :36:46.should be shared between the allowances and the higher rate, but
:36:47. > :36:52.I don't think that the progress on the deficit is something we can give
:36:53. > :36:59.up on. This is still a very long way to go. We're only halfway through.
:37:00. > :37:02.Hazel, does it make sense to borrow for tax cuts? I am reluctant to do
:37:03. > :37:09.this, but I agree with both Norman and Malcolm. Malcolm Bruce wants to
:37:10. > :37:13.borrow for tax cuts. We absolutely need to get the deficit down and get
:37:14. > :37:17.finances on a strong footing. But we also have to think about having some
:37:18. > :37:22.spending in the system that in the longer run saves us money. We all
:37:23. > :37:26.know we need to build new homes I don't think it's necessarily the
:37:27. > :37:31.right priority to give people in London mortgage relief in terms of
:37:32. > :37:35.?600,000. We have to get the balance right. Sometimes it is right to
:37:36. > :37:41.spend to save. I'm afraid we have run out of time. There will be
:37:42. > :37:44.plenty more discussion in the lead up to the Budget on Wednesday.
:37:45. > :37:48.It's just gone 11:35am. You're watching the Sunday Politics. We say
:37:49. > :37:52.goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now for Sunday Politics
:37:53. > :37:55.Scotland. Coming up here in 20 minutes, Frances O'Grady, the
:37:56. > :37:57.General Secretary of the TUC, joins us discuss the Week Ahead. First
:37:58. > :38:08.though, the Sunday Politics where you are.
:38:09. > :38:16.Hello and welcome from us. The next 20 minutes with me -- Nick Hurd the
:38:17. > :38:23.Conservative MP for Ruislip, and the Minister for civil society. And the
:38:24. > :38:26.Labour MP for Heston. Later on we are looking at the work of social
:38:27. > :38:29.enterprises in the capital, and we are asking of the secretary is
:38:30. > :38:36.getting the government support it warrants. But first, to the Mayor of
:38:37. > :38:40.London on the Riviera. Boris Johnson defended his visit to Europe's
:38:41. > :38:50.brutalist -- biggest property convention, and said his courting of
:38:51. > :38:56.investors was excluding London is from getting a decent home. He
:38:57. > :38:59.sought to get a deal from the developers not to market their new
:39:00. > :39:05.properties abroad first, but to give everyone up fair chance. Is that
:39:06. > :39:08.good news? -- a fair chance. There is a difference between foreign
:39:09. > :39:12.investors and foreign owners, and what we have seen in the London
:39:13. > :39:19.housing market, I think it is right that Boris has come forward, and
:39:20. > :39:21.property should be marketed to Londoners first. We have seen the
:39:22. > :39:26.difficulties that Londoners have getting on the housing ladder. It
:39:27. > :39:30.will be marketing for Londoners at the same time as foreign buyers
:39:31. > :39:35.actually, not actually marketing to foreigners first. It's about giving
:39:36. > :39:38.Londoners a fair chance. We want to feel you have a mayor of London who
:39:39. > :39:42.stands up for Londoners, and standing up for what we need, which
:39:43. > :39:47.is affordable housing in London The fact we have a voluntary agreement
:39:48. > :39:50.with the Mayor is a start, but we have to see a lot more action taking
:39:51. > :39:57.place to do with the housing issues in London. Affordable housing, the
:39:58. > :40:01.private rental sector, new-builds in London, where Boris's record has
:40:02. > :40:06.been poor and we have to have a change for people to come off
:40:07. > :40:10.waiting lists. So was it only a gesture, in tackling one small side
:40:11. > :40:14.of this, OK, we make sure Londoners get a fair crack of the whip on new
:40:15. > :40:18.properties but we will distract that from the real issue out there, which
:40:19. > :40:23.is overall supply and affordable supply. That is the main issue, but
:40:24. > :40:29.the good news is that, at long last, we are building new homes in London,
:40:30. > :40:34.including more affordable homes 70,000 since Boris came to power.
:40:35. > :40:37.That's the most important thing I then necessarily mind if foreign
:40:38. > :40:42.investors buy them as long as they are used. I don't like the idea of
:40:43. > :40:45.empty properties in London. You can't do anything about that, so
:40:46. > :40:53.isn't it time to try and do something? You could -- you could
:40:54. > :40:55.encourage people to be charged extra council tax for empty properties
:40:56. > :41:00.that have been empty for over two years. I hate the idea of London
:41:01. > :41:05.properties sitting empty. This idea seems right. Londoners should not be
:41:06. > :41:11.disadvantaged in the process. At the very least they should be marketed
:41:12. > :41:15.to at the same time. I think the Charter and the voluntary pledges
:41:16. > :41:20.are that Londoners will see them first or at the same time. The key
:41:21. > :41:24.thing though is the new homes are coming. What is a shame is that we
:41:25. > :41:28.have seen since Boris came in that houses have been built as a slight
:41:29. > :41:31.-- at a slower rate than planned, and there was meant to be 32,00
:41:32. > :41:36.year. We have to get some recognition of that from Mayor. But
:41:37. > :41:39.what the Labour Party has been calling for, as well as saying by
:41:40. > :41:45.the end of the next parliament we would build 200,000 homes a year, we
:41:46. > :41:48.would also want to see an ability to have an empty home penalty brought
:41:49. > :41:54.forward by year. Those are the kind of things that would help. I wish we
:41:55. > :41:58.could debate this in more length, but let's move on. It was announced
:41:59. > :42:03.this week that three London boroughs, Kingston, Enfield and
:42:04. > :42:07.Waltham Forest will receive up to ?30 million to introduce innovative
:42:08. > :42:11.schemes to improve conditions for cyclists. They are the first of the
:42:12. > :42:15.so-called mini Hollands promoted by City Hall. How far can they get in
:42:16. > :42:21.restoring safety on the streets of the capital? It is the latest turn
:42:22. > :42:25.of the wheel in the Mayor's self-styled cycle revolution,
:42:26. > :42:29.described as mini Hollands. Schemes like this in Kingston are
:42:30. > :42:34.transforming areas in an attempt to get more Londoners on their bikes
:42:35. > :42:37.and follow-on from the money already dedicated to creating cycle
:42:38. > :42:43.superhighways, modernising dangerous junctions and the rolling out of the
:42:44. > :42:46.bike hire scheme. We want to make it friendlier for those who might be
:42:47. > :42:52.hesitant about cycling, get them on their bike, give them the confidence
:42:53. > :42:57.they need. Although the ?913 million will go a long way over ten years,
:42:58. > :43:00.there are those who say it isn't enough. We welcome initiatives like
:43:01. > :43:05.the mini Hollands, but it's about spending the money. If it is really
:43:06. > :43:09.all about transforming the city to make it a cycling capital, he needs
:43:10. > :43:13.to get the money spent to get the schemes delivered on the ground
:43:14. > :43:16.Some content that the delivery on cycling has been patchy from the
:43:17. > :43:20.Mayor, and even the Barclays bank bike hire scheme has run into
:43:21. > :43:24.controversy over the amount of money that Barclays bank has invested into
:43:25. > :43:27.the project. There have also been criticisms about the amount of
:43:28. > :43:32.allocated budget the Mayor is actually spending. It's expected
:43:33. > :43:40.that ?38 million earmarked for cycling will go and spend this year,
:43:41. > :43:45.an improvement on the ?74 million left in the bank in 2012, but
:43:46. > :43:50.still, as admitted at the London assembly, not good enough. What the
:43:51. > :43:54.underspend represents is frankly an embarrassment. You ought to be able
:43:55. > :43:58.to get the stuff out the door. No one can deny that schemes like the
:43:59. > :44:02.one announced this week will be of great benefit to the Londoners that
:44:03. > :44:07.they serve, but will the rest of the capital feel the benefits of the
:44:08. > :44:12.cycle revolution any time soon? Andrew Gilligan is here. Welcome to
:44:13. > :44:17.you. If something is a good idea and worth doing, why not do it right
:44:18. > :44:22.around out London rather than just create these three areas that
:44:23. > :44:25.everyone else will envy? We want to do it all over the place, but we
:44:26. > :44:28.haven't got the money. We are spending two and a half times more
:44:29. > :44:31.than the government is spending in the country put together, so we re
:44:32. > :44:39.spending more than anyone else, but in a city the size of London. Why
:44:40. > :44:42.did you go to these? Basically, the approaches to do some things really
:44:43. > :44:48.well rather than loads of things badly. -- the approach is to do The
:44:49. > :44:51.idea is that these places will become examples that other suburbs
:44:52. > :44:58.in Britain want to follow, and might inspire others to follow and spend.
:44:59. > :45:03.In broad terms, segregation, trying to take cycle traffic away from cars
:45:04. > :45:06.and buses? They are different. Waltham Forest, lots of Victorian
:45:07. > :45:11.streets, bit like Hackney, but choked with cars. What Hackney has
:45:12. > :45:17.done is built at the traffic and make them walking and cycling places
:45:18. > :45:20.which is a good idea. Kingston has a redesign of the town centre, which
:45:21. > :45:25.is also a fantastic idea with segregated roots and a boardwalk on
:45:26. > :45:28.the river. Enfield has major segregated superhighways, so they
:45:29. > :45:34.will be quite transformed and dramatic amounts will be spent. Is
:45:35. > :45:39.it to encourage local journeys? Mostly local. The vast majority in
:45:40. > :45:46.the suburbs are under two miles and most of them are made by car. My
:45:47. > :45:49.typical target audience is not some bloke in Lycra cycling 15 miles to
:45:50. > :45:54.work in central London, that is too far for most. The typical audience
:45:55. > :46:04.for the scheme is a woman in her 40s cycling to the shops. That is what I
:46:05. > :46:09.want. I want those people. Why this preoccupation with having to create
:46:10. > :46:16.an impression? It is about 90 million every year, less than it has
:46:17. > :46:25.been over some previous years, 10, 111 million? 2012/13? This is the
:46:26. > :46:30.amount you have budgeted for in those years, not you personally but
:46:31. > :46:36.the mayor did. Why is there such a preoccupation with making it sound
:46:37. > :46:42.like there is so much money? It is roughly 3.5 times what we were
:46:43. > :46:50.spending before. Is that because you haven't been spending what you said
:46:51. > :46:57.you were going to be for? The reason for the underspend is simple, it is
:46:58. > :47:01.because I would be absolutely against spending money simply to
:47:02. > :47:05.fulfil a quota on schemes which are not good enough. The programme had
:47:06. > :47:13.to be completely redesigned, it is now three times bigger than it was
:47:14. > :47:22.and that takes time and I will not spend money without high-quality
:47:23. > :47:29.good-quality schemes. Why five years into his mayoral term? The cyclists
:47:30. > :47:37.would be the first to campaign if we did more blue paint on the road type
:47:38. > :47:47.schemes. When he came in in 200 , he made 2010 his year of cycling. We
:47:48. > :47:52.have seen an enormous amount of increase in cycling, 15% a year in
:47:53. > :47:56.some cases, but now we are building the infrastructure to catch up with
:47:57. > :48:01.that. How far do you accept that that is because they were
:48:02. > :48:06.inadequacies in the structure that the airport in to begin with?
:48:07. > :48:12.Because of the enormous success of his previous cycling policies,
:48:13. > :48:17.things like the cycle hire, which normalised it, because of the
:48:18. > :48:22.success of those policies, we have to put in the infrastructure. If you
:48:23. > :48:25.were a journalist on a London newspaper looking at this in
:48:26. > :48:32.critical terms, looking at claiming on the one hand there is going to be
:48:33. > :48:36.a certain amount spent, but year on year only spending a fraction of it,
:48:37. > :48:40.setting out policies trying to encourage a lot of cycling, then
:48:41. > :48:46.redesigning it a few years later, that would be policy failure,
:48:47. > :48:52.wouldn't it? The programme has had to be redesigned to cope with the
:48:53. > :49:00.success. It is not a success if you haven't prepared the roads for
:49:01. > :49:03.people and made them says, is it? In the next few months you will see
:49:04. > :49:10.schemes like the superhighway from Acton to Chadwell Heath, a
:49:11. > :49:15.segregated cycle track, and another one going north to the south through
:49:16. > :49:22.the city, all of these things are in the pipeline but you cannot do that
:49:23. > :49:28.by Friday tea-time. It would invite waste and failure if you did.
:49:29. > :49:35.Neither of your areas benefiting here, save to cycle? Not yet! He
:49:36. > :49:39.mounts a good defence but it has been a real shame for Londoners that
:49:40. > :49:45.we have seen this underspend of what has been over ?150 million but
:49:46. > :49:49.cumulatively over the last six years. I think we need
:49:50. > :49:55.transformation in London to see the cycling go into the mainstream.
:49:56. > :50:03.Would you be interested in this happening? I would expect it. It
:50:04. > :50:09.will not be available for you. I represent an area in Hillingdon
:50:10. > :50:18.where there is real concern about congestion and there is a big
:50:19. > :50:23.opportunity. It is a great idea and in the past we have tinkered with
:50:24. > :50:28.it. What I have been really impressed by is these ideas are
:50:29. > :50:35.radical. They are thinking about doing something really different.
:50:36. > :50:42.How much with limited road space, what is the impact going to be on
:50:43. > :50:46.traffic congestion? That is one of the key reasons we haven't delivered
:50:47. > :50:54.anything yet because we have to plan that. Is it going to have a negative
:50:55. > :50:59.effect? No, because we have been able to plan in order to provide
:51:00. > :51:05.more space for cyclists. It involves traffic measures throughout Greater
:51:06. > :51:20.London, as far as the M25 in some cases. So this will have no impact
:51:21. > :51:26.on lost -- bus delays? I think there will be but we are working to
:51:27. > :51:30.minimise it. Organisations that often reinvest their profits into
:51:31. > :51:33.good causes and the Coalition government has said social
:51:34. > :51:37.enterprises are significant force for good but some have been arguing
:51:38. > :51:44.they could be doing more to harness their energies. How can they do more
:51:45. > :51:50.in the capital? We have been taking a look. This nursery has little
:51:51. > :51:54.customers but the big social impact. It is the London Early Years
:51:55. > :51:58.Foundation in Westminster which uses the profits from its services to
:51:59. > :52:05.subsidised child care for parents who cannot afford it and it is a
:52:06. > :52:10.good example of social enterprise. Social enterprise is a business that
:52:11. > :52:14.puts some or all of its profits back into the community. It generally has
:52:15. > :52:19.ethical or environmental values and in the case of business three, it
:52:20. > :52:24.aims to help as many parents as possible get access to expensive
:52:25. > :52:31.childcare. 40% of those who come through the door are helped by us,
:52:32. > :52:35.we subsidise their places, so we give them a sense of social
:52:36. > :52:41.mobility. We believe in getting children to a point where they are
:52:42. > :52:45.ready to succeed at school. Social enterprise is a growing sector and
:52:46. > :52:51.London is arguably leading the way. There are more than 70,000 social
:52:52. > :52:55.enterprises in the UK, employing around 1 million people, and more
:52:56. > :53:01.than one in five of them are based in the capital. Not all social
:53:02. > :53:17.enterprises are as successful as the nursery. Some say the Government
:53:18. > :53:19.could do more to help. The Government has continued to make it
:53:20. > :53:21.difficult for social enterprises to get access to the contracts that
:53:22. > :53:23.government offers. Very few charities, the social enterprise
:53:24. > :53:25.parts of charities, have been able to get work under the work
:53:26. > :53:28.programme, helping people back into work. It has been mainly exclusively
:53:29. > :53:31.the private sector that have benefited from that so the
:53:32. > :53:36.Government isn't really thinking through the commitment to social
:53:37. > :53:39.enterprise that it says it has. A large proportion of social
:53:40. > :53:44.enterprises are based in the deprived areas of London and often
:53:45. > :53:50.provide services that many rely on, which could present risks. What
:53:51. > :53:55.happens if they fail? If the social enterprise fails and it is
:53:56. > :53:59.delivering a key public service that has to keep going. The same
:54:00. > :54:04.happens in the public sector and private sector but usually there is
:54:05. > :54:07.more ability to deal with it and put in a replacement activity, but it is
:54:08. > :54:14.a problem if the social enterprise delivering a key public service
:54:15. > :54:19.fails. The Big Issue is one of the most
:54:20. > :54:23.famous and successful examples of social enterprise, helping homeless
:54:24. > :54:29.and long-term unemployed people make money. Its founder wants the
:54:30. > :54:32.Government to prioritise similar organisations. Hundreds of
:54:33. > :54:39.government departments are doing this, that and the other, but they
:54:40. > :54:48.are unconnected activities. The Government would be better to be
:54:49. > :54:55.doing a full social and report - social entrepreneurial activity
:54:56. > :55:00.Bring it into schools, don't leave it to people like me and the late
:55:01. > :55:05.Anita Roddick, people who are wonderful pioneers but they are bit
:55:06. > :55:10.flaky, make sure it is part of the school curriculum. Supporters of
:55:11. > :55:14.social enterprises say they are invaluable, critics say they are not
:55:15. > :55:22.without risk so is the Government taking them seriously enough?
:55:23. > :55:26.Pretty happy with the current government support? I think it is a
:55:27. > :55:31.real shame that we have seen life get harder for social enterprises,
:55:32. > :55:38.not easier, certainly in terms of having access to government
:55:39. > :55:41.contracts. That was a big part of the big society narrative. Let's
:55:42. > :55:47.pick up on the main point about that, are you disappointed with that
:55:48. > :55:52.progress? Big companies get the contracts when it should be social
:55:53. > :56:01.enterprises? That is the situation we inherited. It has actually become
:56:02. > :56:05.worse over the last few years. We were gradually breaking it down
:56:06. > :56:11.Gareth mentioned the work programme, in fact half of the organisations in
:56:12. > :56:25.that programme are charities or social enterprises. The biggest
:56:26. > :56:30.provider of that is a social enterprise programme. We are trying
:56:31. > :56:36.to make it easier for them to access finance. You will prioritise them
:56:37. > :56:40.for government contracts? We are trying to make the playing field a
:56:41. > :56:47.bit more level. In fact the past the Social Value Act which is all about
:56:48. > :56:52.working with social enterprises This movement is massively
:56:53. > :56:57.impressive, it is growing very fast. Britain leads the world in
:56:58. > :57:02.this and the British government is recognised as the best at this. I
:57:03. > :57:09.have delegations from Burma next week, and others all saying, we like
:57:10. > :57:15.what you are doing. Even when there is such a focus on austerity,
:57:16. > :57:22.finding cuts, the model is slightly more flexible, a model that has to
:57:23. > :57:27.allow for not complete profit motive? Social enterprise movement
:57:28. > :57:32.is massively important, these are businesses that exist to do social
:57:33. > :57:36.good, it is magnificent, but Britain is the best in the world at
:57:37. > :57:39.developing it and we have created a whole new market called social
:57:40. > :57:45.investment where countries around the world are coming to see what we
:57:46. > :57:54.are doing. At the same time we are trying, in very difficult
:57:55. > :57:58.circumstances, we are creating new opportunities for organisations to
:57:59. > :58:04.come in and help deliver better services. Sun Times the Government
:58:05. > :58:11.also has to acknowledge what is not going well. 45% of social and it --
:58:12. > :58:15.enterprises engaging with the public sector is a procurement processes
:58:16. > :58:19.are problem. I think it is a sign things are getting worse, not
:58:20. > :58:27.better. We know the social enterprise sector struggle with the
:58:28. > :58:32.work programme, but if we want those services close to our communities
:58:33. > :58:37.then I think we need to look at how we do things better across
:58:38. > :58:43.government. Labour did nothing about this at all, let's be quite clear.
:58:44. > :58:50.The Social Value Act didn't exist in 2010, but we are creating new
:58:51. > :58:54.opportunities and helping them grow. Interesting stuff. Now it is time
:58:55. > :59:03.for the rest of the political news in 60 seconds. Islington Council has
:59:04. > :59:07.announced it will terminate the contract of firms found to be
:59:08. > :59:11.blacklisting construction workers. Any firm applying for council
:59:12. > :59:14.contracts must prove it does not engage in the practice. Figures were
:59:15. > :59:18.released this week showing the number of lift closures across
:59:19. > :59:26.London Underground. The Jubilee line was found to be the worst affected.
:59:27. > :59:32.Thousands of households affected by noise from a possible second runway
:59:33. > :59:37.at Gatwick would be given ?1000 per year in compensation if it is built.
:59:38. > :59:40.A second Gatwick runway is one of the options currently being
:59:41. > :59:45.considered by the airports commission. It is estimated that
:59:46. > :59:50.over 4000 households would qualify. Following the death of RMT union
:59:51. > :59:57.leader Bob Crow, there were tributes from political friends and folks.
:59:58. > :00:07.The future political direction of the union's leadership will be
:00:08. > :00:11.watched carefully. Some people say Bob Crow was a moderating influence
:00:12. > :00:14.on his union. Would you want to issue a warning to the union that
:00:15. > :00:22.they must not move harder to the left? That is not something I think
:00:23. > :00:25.we should be doing. Not in the week the Bob Crow has died. People are
:00:26. > :00:30.remembering what he did, his passion, his commitment, and also
:00:31. > :00:36.what he did, in his way, in the best way he could, to work for safe and
:00:37. > :00:40.affordable public transport. Is this ever an opportunity for people to
:00:41. > :00:47.think politically, but the Mayor of London to push ahead with certain
:00:48. > :00:51.things on the Tube? I think Bob Crow was beloved by his members and I
:00:52. > :00:56.understand why. All I would say on behalf of a London commuter,
:00:57. > :01:01.industrial action is a sign of failure marked success. -- not
:01:02. > :01:14.success. Andrew, back to you. Has George Osborne got a rabbit in
:01:15. > :01:17.his Budget hat? Will the Chancellor find a way to help the squeezed
:01:18. > :01:25.middle? And how do Labour respond? All questions for The Week Ahead.
:01:26. > :01:30.And joining Helen, Janan and Nick to discuss the budget is the general
:01:31. > :01:35.secretary of the Trades Union Congress Frances O'Grady. Welcome
:01:36. > :01:38.back to the programme. I know the TUC has a submission, but if you
:01:39. > :01:44.could pick one thing that you wanted the Chancellor to do above all, what
:01:45. > :01:48.would it be? We want a budget for working people, which means we have
:01:49. > :01:53.to crack the long-term problem of investment in the British economy.
:01:54. > :02:00.Certainly I would like the Chancellor to merit that title they
:02:01. > :02:03.want of the new workers party, and take action on living standards but
:02:04. > :02:13.if they're going to do that it's got to be about unlocking investment. In
:02:14. > :02:16.the period where the economy has been flat-lining there has been
:02:17. > :02:20.little business investment, but there are signs towards the end of
:02:21. > :02:26.last year that it is beginning to pick up. But a long way to go. The
:02:27. > :02:28.problem is we have key industries like construction and manufacturing
:02:29. > :02:35.that are still smaller than they were before the recession. The
:02:36. > :02:40.government itself, of course, has slashed its own capital investment
:02:41. > :02:43.budget by half. There is plenty of good and important work that needs
:02:44. > :02:49.to be done from building houses to improving the transport system, to
:02:50. > :02:54.improving our schools. And the government really needs to pick up
:02:55. > :02:58.that shovel and start investing in our economy to get the decent jobs
:02:59. > :03:04.we need, the pay increases we need, and that in itself will help
:03:05. > :03:10.stimulate demand. It was Alistair Darling who cut in 2011, and it s
:03:11. > :03:14.interesting that Ed Balls in his plans for the next parliament would
:03:15. > :03:18.run a current budget surplus by the end of the parliament as opposed to
:03:19. > :03:23.George Osborne who would have an overall budget surplus. That gives
:03:24. > :03:26.Ed Balls or -- more wriggle room to do what you talk about, but he is
:03:27. > :03:29.reticent to talk about it. He does not want to say that he has an
:03:30. > :03:32.opportunity to spend on investment because he fears if he says it he
:03:33. > :03:36.will be attacked by the Conservatives for being
:03:37. > :03:43.irresponsible. Why is business doing this? The recession was deeper than
:03:44. > :03:48.any since the war and the recovery was slower than almost any since the
:03:49. > :03:54.war. The lag, the time it takes to get over that is longer than anyone
:03:55. > :03:58.expected. I read the same evidence as you towards the end of last year
:03:59. > :04:02.pointing to money being released, and it depends what it is released
:04:03. > :04:06.on, whether it is capital investment or bringing in people on higher
:04:07. > :04:12.wages. The one surprise in the downturn is how well the employment
:04:13. > :04:15.figures have done, but they have not invested in new capacity and they
:04:16. > :04:19.are sitting on a lot of dosh. I looked at one set of figures that
:04:20. > :04:25.said if you took the biggest company in Britain, they have about 715
:04:26. > :04:29.billion pounds in corporate treasury -- the biggest companies. I think
:04:30. > :04:35.it's reduced a little but they are sitting on a mountain in dash of
:04:36. > :04:39.skills. Yes, but they're not investing in skills, wages, or
:04:40. > :04:44.sustainable jobs. The new jobs we have seen created since 2010, the
:04:45. > :04:50.vast majority of them have been in low paid industries, and they are
:04:51. > :04:53.often zero hours, or insecure, or part-time. So it's not delivering a
:04:54. > :04:59.recovery for ordinary working people. Government ministers, as you
:05:00. > :05:02.know when you lobby them, they are anxious to make out that they know
:05:03. > :05:08.the job is not done and the recovery has just begun, but the one bit they
:05:09. > :05:13.are privately proud of, although they can't explain it, is how many
:05:14. > :05:17.private-sector jobs have been created. A lot of unions have done
:05:18. > :05:20.sensible deals with employers to protect jobs through this period,
:05:21. > :05:25.but it's not sustainable. The average worker in Britain today is
:05:26. > :05:32.now ?2000 a year worse off in real terms than they were. On a pay
:05:33. > :05:40.against price comparison? It doesn't take into account tax cuts. The
:05:41. > :05:48.raising of the personal allowance is far outweighed by the raising VAT.
:05:49. > :05:51.Does the raising of the threshold which the Lib Dems are proud of and
:05:52. > :05:56.the Tories are trying to trade credit for, does it matter to your
:05:57. > :06:01.members? -- take credit for. It matters that it is eclipsed by the
:06:02. > :06:04.cuts in benefits and know what is conned any more. We're going to hear
:06:05. > :06:10.a lot about the raising of the allowance, but as long as the real
:06:11. > :06:14.value of work, tax credits, things like that, people won't feel it in
:06:15. > :06:17.their pocket, and they will find it harder and harder to look after
:06:18. > :06:21.their family. When you look at the other things that could take over
:06:22. > :06:25.from consumer spending which has driven the recovery, held by house
:06:26. > :06:28.price rising in the south, it is exports and business investment and
:06:29. > :06:33.you look at the state of the Eurozone and the emerging markets
:06:34. > :06:37.which are now in trouble, and the winter seems to have derailed the US
:06:38. > :06:44.recovery. It won't be exports. Indeed, the Obie Eich does not think
:06:45. > :06:48.that will contribute to growth until 2015 -- OBI. So the figures we
:06:49. > :06:55.should be looking at our business investment. And also the deficit.
:06:56. > :06:59.The deficit is 111 billion, and that is a problem, because we are not at
:07:00. > :07:04.the end of the cutting process, there are huge cuts to be made. I
:07:05. > :07:07.understand we are only a third of the way through. That will
:07:08. > :07:11.definitely affect business confidence. It is clear that the
:07:12. > :07:14.strategy has failed. Borrowing has gone up and it's not delivered
:07:15. > :07:22.improved living standards and better quality jobs, so cutting out of the
:07:23. > :07:25.recession is not going to work. The structural budget deficit was going
:07:26. > :07:31.to be eliminated three weeks today under the original plan. They missed
:07:32. > :07:37.target after target. Every economist has their own definition of that. I
:07:38. > :07:42.think Mark Carney is right when he says that fundamentally the economy
:07:43. > :07:46.is unbalanced and it is not sustainable, growth is not
:07:47. > :07:52.sustainable. But if it clicked on, it would be more balanced. It is not
:07:53. > :07:55.just north and south and manufacturing a way out with
:07:56. > :08:01.services, but it is also between the rich and everybody else. What do you
:08:02. > :08:04.make of the fact that there will effectively be another freezing
:08:05. > :08:12.public sector pay, or at least no more than 1%? Not even that for
:08:13. > :08:17.nurses and health workers. But they will get 3% progression pay. 70 of
:08:18. > :08:21.nurses will not get any pay rise at all. They get no progression pay at
:08:22. > :08:26.all. I think this is smack in the mouth. Smack in the mouth to
:08:27. > :08:32.dedicated health care workers who will feel very, very discontented
:08:33. > :08:37.about the decision. Danny Alexander, I saw him appealing to
:08:38. > :08:43.health workers do not move to strike ballots and said they should talk to
:08:44. > :08:48.their department. But about what? Is that real pay cut has been imposed,
:08:49. > :08:54.what are workers left with? So do you expect as a result of yet more
:08:55. > :08:59.tough controls on public sector pay that unrest is inevitable? I know
:09:00. > :09:04.some unions will be consulting with their members, but ultimately it's
:09:05. > :09:09.always members who decide what to do. It does seem to me insulting not
:09:10. > :09:18.to at least be honest and say that we are cutting real pay of nurses,
:09:19. > :09:21.health care workers, on the back of a ?3 billion reorganisation of the
:09:22. > :09:29.NHS that nobody wanted and nobody voted for. Their long-term changes
:09:30. > :09:33.taking place here that almost talks about -- there are long-term
:09:34. > :09:40.changes. It is how lower percentage wages have become of GDP on how big
:09:41. > :09:45.the percentage of profits is. It seems to me there is a strong case
:09:46. > :09:49.for some kind of realignment there. The biggest event of my life, in
:09:50. > :09:52.this world, is the entry of a couple of billion more people into the
:09:53. > :09:57.labour supply. At the end of the Cold War, India and China plugged
:09:58. > :10:01.into the global economy. If there is a greater supply of that factor of
:10:02. > :10:06.production, logically you conclude that wages will fall or stagnate and
:10:07. > :10:08.that has been the story in this country and America and large parts
:10:09. > :10:12.of Western Europe in the last generation. What is not possible is
:10:13. > :10:16.for governments to do much about it. They can ameliorate it at the
:10:17. > :10:20.margins, but the idea that the government controls living
:10:21. > :10:23.standards, which has become popular over the last six months, and the
:10:24. > :10:28.Labour Party have in establishing that, and I don't think it's true.
:10:29. > :10:33.George Osborne's options are astonishingly limited compared to
:10:34. > :10:37.public expectations. If wages have reached a modern record low as
:10:38. > :10:44.percentage of GDP, who is going to champion the wage earner? We have
:10:45. > :10:49.lost Bob Crow, Tony Benn passed away, so who is the champion? The
:10:50. > :10:53.trade union movement is the champion of ordinary workers. We need those
:10:54. > :11:01.larger-than-life figures that we will mess. Have you got them yet? We
:11:02. > :11:05.have a generation of workers coming through. One thing about the loss of
:11:06. > :11:09.Bob Crow is that the whole union movement has responded strongly to
:11:10. > :11:12.that, and we want to say that we are strong and united and here to stand
:11:13. > :11:17.up for working people and we will fight as hard as Bob Crow did.
:11:18. > :11:20.Whoever replaces Bob Crow or Tony Benn, we can be sure they will not
:11:21. > :11:25.come from Eton because they all have jobs in the government. I want to
:11:26. > :11:26.put up on the screen what even Michael Gove was saying about this
:11:27. > :11:41.coterie of Old Etonian 's. He's right, is he not? He's
:11:42. > :11:47.absolutely right. We have the idea of the manifesto being written by
:11:48. > :11:53.five people from Eton and one from Saint Pauls. A remarkable example of
:11:54. > :11:56.social mobility that George Osborne, who had the disadvantage of going to
:11:57. > :12:04.Saint Pauls has made it into that inner circle. Here is the question,
:12:05. > :12:07.what is Michael Gove up to? If you saw the response from George
:12:08. > :12:10.Osborne, there was no slap down and they know this is an area they are
:12:11. > :12:15.weak on an David Cameron will not comment on it. If this had been a
:12:16. > :12:20.Labour shadow minister making a similarly disloyal statement, they
:12:21. > :12:23.might have been shot at dawn. But there is a real tolerance from
:12:24. > :12:27.Michael Gove to go freelance which comes from George Osborne. It's
:12:28. > :12:30.about highlighting educational reforms that he wants to turn every
:12:31. > :12:34.school in to eat and so it won't happen in the future. But it's also
:12:35. > :12:38.pointing out who did not go to Eton school and who would be the best
:12:39. > :12:42.candidate to replace David Cameron as leader, George Osborne, and who
:12:43. > :12:46.did go to Eton school, Boris Johnson. Michael Gove is on
:12:47. > :12:53.manoeuvres to destroy Boris Johnson's chances of being leader.
:12:54. > :12:59.It's a good job they don't have an election to worry about. Hold on. I
:13:00. > :13:02.think they are out of touch with businesses as well as working
:13:03. > :13:06.people. You ask about who is talking about wage earners. Businesses are.
:13:07. > :13:11.They are worried that unless living standards rise again there will be
:13:12. > :13:17.nobody there to buy anything. We are running out of time, but the TUC,
:13:18. > :13:22.are enthusiastic about HS2? We supported. We think it's the kind of
:13:23. > :13:26.infrastructure project that we need to invest in long-term. He could, if
:13:27. > :13:30.we get it right, rebalance north and south and create good jobs along the
:13:31. > :13:37.way -- it could. Thank you very much tool. I have to say that every week
:13:38. > :13:40.-- thank you very much to you all. That's all for today. I'll be back
:13:41. > :13:45.next Sunday at 11am, and Jo Coburn will be on BBC Two tomorrow at
:13:46. > :13:47.midday with the Daily Politics. Remember if it's Sunday, it's the
:13:48. > :13:50.Sunday Politics.