16/03/2014 Sunday Politics North West

Morning folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. George Osborne's fifth

Budget will offer more tax relief for the lower paid but not for

middle income earners being thrust into the 40p tax bracket. That's our

top story. Ed Balls says millions of people

aren't feeling any benefit from the recovery. We'll discuss the economy

with big political beasts from Labour, the Conservatives, and the

Lib Dems. Now that Ed Miliband has effectively ruled out an in/out EU

referendum, how does UKIP deal with Tory claims that a vote for UKIP

means no chance of a referendum UKIP leader Nigel Farage joins me

for the Sunday Interview. In London, restoring confidence in the safety

of cycling. The three areas of London getting a cash boost to try

something different. And with me as always our top

political panel - Nick Watt, Helen Lewis and Janan Ganesh. They'll be

tweeting their thoughts using the hashtag #bbcsp throughout the

programme. So, just three months after his last major financial

statement, George Osborne will be at the despatch box again on Wednesday,

delivering his 2014 Budget. The Chancellor has already previewed his

own speech, pledging to build what he calls a "resilient economy". The

message I will give in the Budget is the economic plan is working but the

job is far from done. We need to build resilient economy which means

addressing the long-term weaknesses in Britain that we don't export

enough, invest enough, build enough, make enough. Those are the things I

will address because we want Britain to earn its way in the world. George

Osborne's opposite number, Ed Balls, has also been talking ahead of the

Budget. He says not everyone is feeling the benefit of the economic

recovery, and again attacked the Government's decision to reduce the

top rate of tax from 50 to 45%. George Osborne is only ever tough

when he's having a go at the week and the voiceless. Labour is willing

to face up to people on the highest incomes and say, I'm sorry,

justifying a big tax cut at this time is not fair. We will take away

the winter allowance from the richer pensioners, and I think that's the

right thing to do. George Osborne might agree, but he's not allowed to

say so. That was the Chancellor and the shadow chancellor. Janan, it

seems like we are in a race against time. No one argues that the

recovery is not under way, in fact it looks quite strong after a long

wait, but will it feed through to the living standards of ordinary

people in time for the May election? They only have 14 months to do it.

The big economic variable is business investment. Even during the

downturn, businesses hoarded a lot of cash. The question is, are they

confident enough to release that into investment and wages? Taking on

new people, giving them higher pay settlements. That could make the

difference and the country will feel more prosperous and this time next

year. But come to think of it, it strikes me, that how anticipated it

is, it's the least talked about Budget for many years. I think that

is because the economy has settled down a bit, but also because people

have got used to the idea that there is no such thing as a giveaway.

Anything that is a tax cut will be taken away as a tax rise or spending

cut. That's true during the good times but during fiscal

consolidation, it's avoidable. - unavoidable. There is a plus and

minus for the Conservatives here. 49% of people think the government

is on roughly the right course, but only 16% think that their financial

circumstances will improve this year. It will be a tough one for the

Labour Party to respond to. I agree with Janan. Everyone seems bored

with the run-up to the Budget. The front page of the Sunday Times was

about fox hunting, the front page of the Sunday Telegraph was about EU

renegotiation. Maybe we are saying this because there have not been

many leaks. We have got used to them, and most of the George Osborne

chat on Twitter was about how long his tie was. Freakishly long. I

wouldn't dare to speculate why. Anything we should read into that? I

don't know. For a long while there was no recovery, then it was it is a

weak recovery, and now, all right, it's strong but not reaching

everyone in the country. That is where we are in the debate. That's

right, and the Conservative MPs are so anxious and they are making

George Osborne announcing the rays in the personal allowance will go

up, saying it might go up to 10 750 from next year, and Conservative MPs

say that that's OK but we need to think about the middle voters.

People are saying the economy is recovering but no one is feeling it

in their pocket. These are people snagged in at a 40p tax rate. The

Tories are saying these are our people and we have to get to them.

He has given the Lib Dems more than they could have hoped for on raising

the threshold. Why is he not saying we have done a bit for you, now we

have to look after our people and get some of these people out of that

40% bracket? Partly because the Lib Dems have asked for it so

insistently behind-the-scenes. Somebody from the Treasury this week

told me that these debates behind the scenes between the Lib Dems and

Tories are incredibly tenacious and get more so every year. The Lib Dems

have been insistent about going further on the threshold. The second

reason is that the Tories think the issue can work for them in the next

election. They can take the credit. If they enthusiastically going to

?12,000 and make it a manifesto pledge, they can claim ownership of

the policy. The Liberal Democrats want to take it to 12,500, which

means you are getting into minimum wage territory. It's incredibly

expensive and the Tories are saying that maybe you would be looking at

the 40p rate. The Tories have played as well. There have been authorised

briefings about the 40p rate, and Cameron and Osborne have said that

their priority was helping the lowest paid which is a useful

statement to make and it appeals to the UKIP voters who are the

blue-collar workers. And we are right, the economy will determine

the next election? You assume so. It was ever that is. It didn't in 992

or 1987. It did in 1992. Ed Miliband's announcement last week

that a Labour government would not hold a referendum on Europe unless

there's another transfer of powers from Britain to Brussels has

certainly clarified matters. UKIP say it just shows the mainstream

parties can't be trusted. The Conservatives think it means UKIP

voters might now flock back to them as the only realistic chance of

securing a referendum. Giles Dilnot reports.

When it comes to Europe and Britain's relation to it, the

question is whether the answer is answered by a question. To be in or

not to be in, that is the question, and our politicians have seemed less

interested in question itself but whether they want to let us answer

it. Labour clarified their position last week. There will be no transfer

of powers without an in out referendum, without a clear choice

as to whether Britain will stay in the EU. That seems yes to a

referendum, but hold on. I believe it is unlikely that this lock will

be used in the next Parliament. So that's a no. The Conservatives say

yes to asking, in 2017, if re-elected, but haven't always. In

2011, 81 Tory MPs defied the PM by voting for a referendum on EU

membership: the largest rebellion against a Tory prime minister over

Europe. Prompted by a petition from over 100,000 members of the public.

The wrong question at the wrong time said the Foreign Secretary of a

coalition Government including selfie-conciously-pro European Lib

Dems, who had a referendum pledge in their 2010 manifesto, but only in

certain circumstances. So we have the newspapers, and the public

meeting leaflets. UKIP have always wanted the question put regardless.

But Labour's new position may change things and The Conservatives think

so. I think it does, because, you know, we are saying very clearly,

like UKIP, we want a referendum but only a Conservative government can

deliver it because most suffer largest would say it is possible in

the first past the post system to have a UKIP government --

sophologists. And then it's easy for as to say that if a UKIP vote lets

in a Conservative government, then they won't hold a referendum. UKIP

seem undaunted by the clarifications of the other parties, campaigning

like the rest but with a "tell it how it is, just saying what you re

thinking, we aren't like them" attitude. They seem more worried

about us and what we want, and I don't see that in the other parties.

In parts of the UK, like South Essex, it's a message they think is

working. They are taking the voters for granted again and people have

had enough. People are angry, they see people saying they will get a

vote on the European Union, but then it just comes down the road. They

were quick to capitalise on the announcements, saying only the

Conservatives will give you say so does it change things? Not really.

We have been talking about a referendum and having a debate on

the European Union for years, and the other parties are playing catch

up. They have a trust issue. Nobody trusts them on the European Union

and that is why people come to us. Who the average UKIP voter is, or

how they voted before is complicated, and what dent they

might make on Conservative and Labour votes in 2015 is trickier

still, but someone's been crunching the numbers anyway. We reckon it is

between 25 and 30% of the electorate broadly share the UKIP motivation,

so to top out at that level would be difficult. That's an awful lot of

voters, but it's not the majority, and this is the reason why the main

parties can't afford to just openly appealed to the UKIP electorate too

hard because the elections are won and lost amongst the other 70%, the

middle-class, the graduate, the younger, ethnic minorities. An

appeal to the values of UKIP voters will alienate some of the other

groups, and they are arguably more significant in winning the election.

Whatever, the numbers UKIPers seem doggedly determined to dig away at

any support the other parties have previously enjoyed.

Giles Dilnot reporting. UKIP's leader, Nigel Farage, joins me now

for the Sunday Interview. Nigel Farage, welcome back. Good

morning. So the Labour Party has shot a fox. If Ed Miliband is the

next by Minister, there will not be a referendum customer there's a long

way between now and the next election, and Conservative party

jobs and changes. We had a cast iron guarantee of a referendum from

camera, then he three line whip people to vote against it, and now

they are for it. What the Labour Party has done is open up a huge

blank to us, and that is what we will go for in the European

elections this coming year in May. I think there is a very strong chance

that Labour will match the Conservative pledge by the next

general election. There may be, but at the moment he has ruled it out,

and if he does not change his mind and goes into the election with the

policy as it is, the only chance of a referendum is a Tory government.

If you think the Tories will form a majority, which I think is unlikely.

Remember, two thirds of our voters would never vote Conservative

anyway. There is still this line of questioning that assumes UKIP voters

are middle-class Tories. We have some voters like that, but most of

them are coming to us from Labour, some from the Lib Dems and a lot of

nonvoters. But it come the election you failed to change Mr Miliband's

line, I repeat, the only chance of a referendum, if you want a

referendum, if that is what matters, and the polls suggest it doesn't

matter to that many people, but if that is what matters, the only way

you can get one is to vote Conservative. No, because you have a

situation in key marginals, especially where all three parties

are getting a good share, where we will see, and this depends a lot on

the local elections and the European elections, there are target

constituencies where UKIP has a reasonably good chance of winning a

seat, and that will change the agenda. Every vote for UKIP makes a

Tory government less likely. Arab voters are not Tory. Only a third of

the UKIP boat comes from the Conservative party -- our voters are

not Tory. -- the UKIP vote. It was mentioned earlier, about blue-collar

voters. We pick up far more Labour Party and nonvoters than

conservatives. On the balance of what the effect of the UKIP boat

is, the Tories should worry about us, they should worry about the fact

they have lost faith with their own electorate. Even if there is a

minority Ed Miliband government it means no referendum. Labour and the

Liberal Democrats are now at one on the matter. The next election is in

a few weeks time, the European elections. What happens in those

elections will likely change the party stands and position on a

referendum. The fact that Ed Miliband has said this means, for

us, our big target on the 22nd of May will be the Labour voters in the

Midlands and northern cities, and if we do hammer into that boat and we

are able to beat Labour on the day, there's a good chance of their

policy changing. One poll this morning suggests Labour is close to

you at 28, the Conservatives down at 21, the Lib Dems down at eight. You

are taking votes from the Conservatives and the Liberal

Democrats. We are certainly taking votes from the Lib Dems but that is

comparing the poll with one year ago when I don't think most people knew

what the question really was. You seem to be in an impossible position

because the better you do in a general election, the less chance

there will be a referendum by 2 20. No, look at the numbers. Only a

third of our voters are Conservatives. When we have polled

voters that have come to us, we asked them if there was no UKIP

candidate who would you vote for, less than one in five said

Conservative. Less than one in five UKIP voters would be tempted to vote

Conservative under any circumstances so the arithmetic does not suggest

we are the Conservative problem it suggests we are hurting all of the

parties and the reason the Tories are in trouble is because they have

lost their traditional base. Why do you think Nick Clegg is debating

Europe? I think they are in trouble, at 8% they could be wiped

out, they could go from 12 to nothing and I think it is a chance

for Nick Clegg to raise their profile. They are fringe party with

respect to this contest so I see why he wants to do it. One of our big

criticisms is that we have not been able to have a full debate on

national television on the alternatives of the European Union

so I am looking forward to it. How are you preparing? I think you can

be over scripted with these things. Are you not doing mock debates? No,

I am checking my facts and figures and making sure that I can show the

British people that in terms of jobs, we would be far better off not

being within the European Union not being within its rule book, not

suffering from some of the green taxes they are putting on the

manufacturing industry. The idea that 3 million jobs are at risk I

want to show why that is nonsense. Who do you think is playing you in

their mock debates? They probably went to the pub and found someone!

We will see. You have promised to do whatever it takes to fund your

European election campaign, how much has been given so far? Just give it

a few weeks and you will see what Paul is planning to do. He has made

a substantial investment in the campaign already. How much? I'm not

answering that for now. We are well on our way to a properly funded

campaign and our big target will be the big cities and the working vote

in those communities. Your deputy chairman Neil Hamilton is another

former Tory, he says so far we haven't seen the colour of his

money. Exactly two weeks ago, and things have changed since then. Mr

Sykes has written a cheque since then? Yes. This morning's papers

saying you will be asking MEPs to contribute ?50,000 each, is that

true? Over the next five years, yes. Not for the European campaign. So

lack of money will not be an excuse. We will have a properly funded

campaign. How we raise the kind of money needed to fund the general

election afterwards is another question. What is UKIP's policy on

paying family members? We don't encourage it and I didn't employ any

family member for years. My wife ended up doing the job and paid for

the first seven years of my job She is paid now? Until May, then she

comes off the payroll am which leaves me with a huge problem. In

2004 you said, UKIP MEPs will not employ wives and there will be no

exceptions. An exception was made because I became leader of the

National party as well as a leader of the group in European

Parliament. Things do change in life, and you can criticise me for

whatever you like, but I cannot be criticised for not having a big

enough workload. No, but you didn't employ your wife when you had told

others not to do it your party. Nobody else in my party has a big

job in Europe and the UK. We made the exception for this because of

very unusual circumstances. It also looks like there was a monetary

calculation. Listen to this clip from a BBC documentary in 2000. It

is a good job. I worked it out because so much of what you get is

after tax that if you used the secretarial allowances to pay your

wife on top of the other games you can play, I reckon this job in

Stirling term is over a quarter of ?1 million a year. That is what you

would need to earn working for Goldman Sachs or someone like that.

I agree with that. More importantly the way you really make money in the

European Parliament is being their five days a week, because you sign

in every day, you get 300 euros every day, and that is how people

maxed out. The criticism of me is that I am not there enough so

whatever good or bad I have done in the European Parliament, financial

gain has not been one of the benefits. There have been

allegations of you also employing a former mistress on the same European

Parliamentary allowance, you deny that? I am very upset with the BBC

coverage of this. The ten o'clock news run this as a story without

explaining that that allegation was made using Parliamentary privilege

by somebody on bail facing serious fraud charges. I thought that was

pretty poor. You have a chance to do that and you deny you have employed

a former mistress? Yes, but if you look at many of the things said over

the last week, I think it is becoming pretty clear to voters that

the establishment are becoming terrified of UKIP and they will use

anything they can find to do us down in public. Is an MEP employs his

wife and his former mistress, that would be resigning matter, wouldn't

it? Yes, particularly if the assumption was that money was being

taped for work but was not being done. Who do you think is behind

these stories? It is all about negative, it is all about attacks,

but I don't think it is actually going to work because so much of

what has been said in the last week is nonsense. A reputable daily

newspaper said I shouldn't be trusted because I had stored six

times for the Conservative party, I have never even stored in a local

council election. I think if you keep kicking an underdog, it will

make the British people rally around us. Is it the Conservatives? Yes,

and the idea that all of our voters are retired colonels is simply not

true. We get some voters from the Labour side as well. Would you

consider standing in a Labour seat if you are so sure you are getting

Labour votes? Yes, but the key for UKIP is that it has to be marginal.

Just for your own future, if you fail to win a single soul -- single

seat in the general election, if Ed Miliband fails to win an outright

majority, will you stand down as UKIP leader? I would think within

about 12 hours, yes. I will have failed, I got into politics not

because I wanted a career in politics, far from it. I did it

because I don't think this European entanglement is right for our

country. I think a lot of people have woken up to the idea we have

lost control of our borders and now is the moment for UKIP to achieve

what it set out to do. Will UKIP continue without you if you stand

down? Of course it will. I know that everyone says it is a one-man band

but it is far from that. We have had some painful moments, getting rid of

old UKIP, new UKIP is more professional, less angry and it is

going places. Nigel Farage, thank you for being with us.

So, what else should we be looking out for in Wednesday's Budget

statement? We've compiled a Sunday Politics guide to the Chancellor's

likely announcements. Eyes down everyone, it's time for a

bit of budget bingo. Let's see what we will get from the man who lives

at legs 11. Despite some good news on the economy, George Osborne says

that this will be a Budget of hard truths with more pain ahead in order

to get the public finances back under control. But many in the

Conservative party, including the former chancellor Norman Lamont

want Mr Osborne to help the middle classes by doing something about the

4.4 million people who fall into the 40% bracket. Around one million more

people pay tax at that rate compared to 2010 because the higher tax

threshold hasn't increased in line with inflation. Mr Osborne has

indicated he might tackle the issue in the next Conservative manifesto,

but for now he is focused on helping the low paid. It's likely we will

see another increase in the amount you can earn before being taxed

perhaps up another ?500 to ?10, 00. The Chancellor is going to flesh out

the details of a tax break for childcare payments, and there could

be cries of 'house' with the promise of more help for the building

industry. The Help To Buy scheme will be extended to 2020 and there

could be the go-ahead for the first Garden City in 40 years. Finally,

bingo regulars could be celebrating a full house with a possible cut in

bingo tax. And I've been joined in the studio

by the former Conservative chancellor Norman Lamont, in Salford

by the former Labour Cabinet minister Hazel Blears, and in

Aberdeen by the Lib Dem deputy leader, Malcolm Bruce. Let me come

to Norman Lamont first, you and another former Tory Chancellor,

Nigel Lawson, have called in the fall in the threshold for the rate

at which the 40p clicks in. I would have preferred an adjustment in the

Budget but I agree with what you are saying, it sounds like the

Chancellor will not do that. My main point is that you cannot go on

forever and forever increasing the personal allowance and not

increasing the 40% tax threshold because you are driving more and

more people into that band. It is an expensive policy because in order to

keep the number of people not paying tax constant, you have to keep

adjusting it each year. When this was introduced by Nigel Lawson, it

applied to one in 20 people, the 40% rate, it now applies to one in six

people. By next year, there will be 6 million people paying base. Why do

you think your Tory colleagues seem happy to go along with the Lib Dems

and target whatever money there is for tax cuts rather -- on the lower

paid rather than the middle incomes? They are not helping the lowest

paid. If you wanted to really help the lowest paid people you would

raise the threshold for national insurance contributions, which is

around ?6,000. Is it the Lib Dems stopping any rise in the 40p

threshold? We are concentrating on raising the lower threshold because

we believe that is the way to help those on lower incomes. Whilst they

haven't benefited as much as the lower paid they have participated

and I think people understand right now, if you were going to prioritise

the high earners, when we are still trying to help those on lower and

middle incomes who haven't enjoyed great pay increases but have got the

benefit of these tax increases, that is why we would like to do it for

the minimum wage level. But the poorest will not benefit at all The

poorest 16% already don't pay tax. Why don't you increase the threshold

at which National Insurance starts? You only have two earned ?5,500

before you start to pay it. You ve got to remember that the raising of

the threshold to ?10,000 or more was something the Tories said we could

not afford. Why are you continuing to do it? If you want to help the

working poor, the way would be to take the lowest out of national

insurance. The view we take is they are benefiting, and have benefited

from, the raising of the tax threshold. You now have to earn

?10,000, we hope eventually 12, 00, and that means only people on very

low wages. If you opt out of national insurance, you're saying to

people that you make no contribution to the welfare system, so there is a

general principle that people should participate and paying, and also

claim when they need something out. We thought raising the threshold was

simple and effective at a time of economic austerity and the right way

to deliver a helpful support to welcoming people. -- working people.

With the Labour Party continue to raise the threshold, or do they

think there is a case that there are too many people being dragged into

the 40p tax bracket? If Norman Lamont thinks this is the right time

to benefit people who are reasonably well off rather than those who are

struggling to make ends meet, then genuinely, I say it respectfully, I

don't think he's living in the world the rest of us are. Most working

people have seen their wages effectively reduced by about ?1 00

because they have been frozen, so the right thing is to help people on

modest incomes. I also understand that if the 40% threshold went up,

the people who would benefit the most, as ever, are the people who

are really well off, not the people in the middle. The Conservatives

have already reduced the 50p tax on people over ?150,000 a year, and we

have to concentrate on the people going out to work, doing their best

to bring their children up and have a decent life and need a bit of

help. I think raising the threshold is a good thing. We would bring back

the 10p tax, which we should never have abolished, and do things with

regard to childcare. At the moment, childcare costs the average family

as much as their mortgage, for goodness sake. We would give 25

hours free childcare for youngsters over three and four years old. That

would be a massive boost the working families. We are talking about

nurses, tube drivers, warrant officers in the army. There are many

people who are not well off but have been squeezed in the way everybody

has been squeezed and they are finding it continuing. I am stunned

by Malcolm's argument where everybody should pay something so

you should not take people out of national insurance, but the

principle doesn't apply to income tax. You can stand that argument on

its head and apply it to income tax. Most people don't see a difference

between income tax and national insurance, it's the same thing to

most people. It is true that it isn't really an insurance fund and

there is an argument from merging both of them. But we have

concentrated on a simple tax proposition. Norman is ignoring the

fact the people on the 40% rate have benefited by the raising of the

personal allowance. To say they have been squeezed is unfair. The

calculation is that an ordinary taxpayer will be ?700 better off at

the current threshold, and about ?500 better off at the higher rate.

It is misleading to say the better off we'll be paying more. I agree

with Hazel, if you go to the 40 rate, it's the higher earners who

benefit the most, and we won't do that when the economy is not where

it was before the crash. How much will the lower paid be better off if

you reintroduce the 10p rate? Significantly better off. I don t

have the figure myself, but they'd be significantly better off and the

Budget should be a mixture of measures to help people who work

hard. That is why I think the childcare issue has to be

addressed. ?100 a week of the people with childcare payments. It is a

massive issue. We want the job is guaranteed to get young people back

into work. There's been hardly any discussion about that, and we have

nearly 1 million people who have been out of work for six months or

more, and as a country we need to do something to help that. 350,000

full-time students, so it is a misleading figure. It is not a

million including full-time students. All parties do this. It

sounds to me, Malcolm Bruce, you have more in common with the Labour

Party than you do with the Conservatives. You want an annual

levy on houses over ?2 million, so does Labour. A lot of your members

want to scrap the so-called bedroom tax and so does labour. You think

every teacher should have a teaching qualification, and so does Labour.

Your policy on the EU referendum is the same. Let me go on. And you want

to scrap the winter fuel allowance for wealthy pensioners. We want to

make sure we get the public finances in order and we have grave

reservations about the Labour Party promises. But they followed your

spending plans in the first year. The point we are making is we can

make a fairer society and stronger economy if you keep the public

finances moving towards balance We don't think the Labour Party will

take a stand that track. It is interesting that the Labour Party

want to introduce the 10p rate that Gordon Brown abolished. We consider

that before we can -- committed to the 0% rate -- we considered that.

It makes a complicated system difficult and we think it's better

doing it that way. As a fiscal conservative, why are you talking

about any tax cuts when the deficit is over ?100 billion, and

effectively, anything you propose today can only be financed by more

borrowing. I totally agree with you. I said that this week. I thought the

best thing would have no Budget The main thing is to get the deficit

down. My argument is is that you have an adjustment in tax rates it

should be shared between the allowances and the higher rate, but

I don't think that the progress on the deficit is something we can give

up on. This is still a very long way to go. We're only halfway through.

Hazel, does it make sense to borrow for tax cuts? I am reluctant to do

this, but I agree with both Norman and Malcolm. Malcolm Bruce wants to

borrow for tax cuts. We absolutely need to get the deficit down and get

finances on a strong footing. But we also have to think about having some

spending in the system that in the longer run saves us money. We all

know we need to build new homes I don't think it's necessarily the

right priority to give people in London mortgage relief in terms of

?600,000. We have to get the balance right. Sometimes it is right to

spend to save. I'm afraid we have run out of time. There will be

plenty more discussion in the lead up to the Budget on Wednesday.

It's just gone 11:35am. You're watching the Sunday Politics. We say

goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now for Sunday Politics

Scotland. Coming up here in 20 minutes, Frances O'Grady, the

General Secretary of the TUC, joins us discuss the Week Ahead. First

though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome from us. The next 20 minutes with me -- Nick Hurd the

Conservative MP for Ruislip, and the Minister for civil society. And the

Labour MP for Heston. Later on we are looking at the work of social

enterprises in the capital, and we are asking of the secretary is

getting the government support it warrants. But first, to the Mayor of

London on the Riviera. Boris Johnson defended his visit to Europe's

brutalist -- biggest property convention, and said his courting of

investors was excluding London is from getting a decent home. He

sought to get a deal from the developers not to market their new

properties abroad first, but to give everyone up fair chance. Is that

good news? -- a fair chance. There is a difference between foreign

investors and foreign owners, and what we have seen in the London

housing market, I think it is right that Boris has come forward, and

property should be marketed to Londoners first. We have seen the

difficulties that Londoners have getting on the housing ladder. It

will be marketing for Londoners at the same time as foreign buyers

actually, not actually marketing to foreigners first. It's about giving

Londoners a fair chance. We want to feel you have a mayor of London who

stands up for Londoners, and standing up for what we need, which

is affordable housing in London The fact we have a voluntary agreement

with the Mayor is a start, but we have to see a lot more action taking

place to do with the housing issues in London. Affordable housing, the

private rental sector, new-builds in London, where Boris's record has

been poor and we have to have a change for people to come off

waiting lists. So was it only a gesture, in tackling one small side

of this, OK, we make sure Londoners get a fair crack of the whip on new

properties but we will distract that from the real issue out there, which

is overall supply and affordable supply. That is the main issue, but

the good news is that, at long last, we are building new homes in London,

including more affordable homes 70,000 since Boris came to power.

That's the most important thing I then necessarily mind if foreign

investors buy them as long as they are used. I don't like the idea of

empty properties in London. You can't do anything about that, so

isn't it time to try and do something? You could -- you could

encourage people to be charged extra council tax for empty properties

that have been empty for over two years. I hate the idea of London

properties sitting empty. This idea seems right. Londoners should not be

disadvantaged in the process. At the very least they should be marketed

to at the same time. I think the Charter and the voluntary pledges

are that Londoners will see them first or at the same time. The key

thing though is the new homes are coming. What is a shame is that we

have seen since Boris came in that houses have been built as a slight

-- at a slower rate than planned, and there was meant to be 32,00

year. We have to get some recognition of that from Mayor. But

what the Labour Party has been calling for, as well as saying by

the end of the next parliament we would build 200,000 homes a year, we

would also want to see an ability to have an empty home penalty brought

forward by year. Those are the kind of things that would help. I wish we

could debate this in more length, but let's move on. It was announced

this week that three London boroughs, Kingston, Enfield and

Waltham Forest will receive up to ?30 million to introduce innovative

schemes to improve conditions for cyclists. They are the first of the

so-called mini Hollands promoted by City Hall. How far can they get in

restoring safety on the streets of the capital? It is the latest turn

of the wheel in the Mayor's self-styled cycle revolution,

described as mini Hollands. Schemes like this in Kingston are

transforming areas in an attempt to get more Londoners on their bikes

and follow-on from the money already dedicated to creating cycle

superhighways, modernising dangerous junctions and the rolling out of the

bike hire scheme. We want to make it friendlier for those who might be

hesitant about cycling, get them on their bike, give them the confidence

they need. Although the ?913 million will go a long way over ten years,

there are those who say it isn't enough. We welcome initiatives like

the mini Hollands, but it's about spending the money. If it is really

all about transforming the city to make it a cycling capital, he needs

to get the money spent to get the schemes delivered on the ground

Some content that the delivery on cycling has been patchy from the

Mayor, and even the Barclays bank bike hire scheme has run into

controversy over the amount of money that Barclays bank has invested into

the project. There have also been criticisms about the amount of

allocated budget the Mayor is actually spending. It's expected

that ?38 million earmarked for cycling will go and spend this year,

an improvement on the ?74 million left in the bank in 2012, but

still, as admitted at the London assembly, not good enough. What the

underspend represents is frankly an embarrassment. You ought to be able

to get the stuff out the door. No one can deny that schemes like the

one announced this week will be of great benefit to the Londoners that

they serve, but will the rest of the capital feel the benefits of the

cycle revolution any time soon? Andrew Gilligan is here. Welcome to

you. If something is a good idea and worth doing, why not do it right

around out London rather than just create these three areas that

everyone else will envy? We want to do it all over the place, but we

haven't got the money. We are spending two and a half times more

than the government is spending in the country put together, so we re

spending more than anyone else, but in a city the size of London. Why

did you go to these? Basically, the approaches to do some things really

well rather than loads of things badly. -- the approach is to do The

idea is that these places will become examples that other suburbs

in Britain want to follow, and might inspire others to follow and spend.

In broad terms, segregation, trying to take cycle traffic away from cars

and buses? They are different. Waltham Forest, lots of Victorian

streets, bit like Hackney, but choked with cars. What Hackney has

done is built at the traffic and make them walking and cycling places

which is a good idea. Kingston has a redesign of the town centre, which

is also a fantastic idea with segregated roots and a boardwalk on

the river. Enfield has major segregated superhighways, so they

will be quite transformed and dramatic amounts will be spent. Is

it to encourage local journeys? Mostly local. The vast majority in

the suburbs are under two miles and most of them are made by car. My

typical target audience is not some bloke in Lycra cycling 15 miles to

work in central London, that is too far for most. The typical audience

for the scheme is a woman in her 40s cycling to the shops. That is what I

want. I want those people. Why this preoccupation with having to create

an impression? It is about 90 million every year, less than it has

been over some previous years, 10, 111 million? 2012/13? This is the

amount you have budgeted for in those years, not you personally but

the mayor did. Why is there such a preoccupation with making it sound

like there is so much money? It is roughly 3.5 times what we were

spending before. Is that because you haven't been spending what you said

you were going to be for? The reason for the underspend is simple, it is

because I would be absolutely against spending money simply to

fulfil a quota on schemes which are not good enough. The programme had

to be completely redesigned, it is now three times bigger than it was

and that takes time and I will not spend money without high-quality

good-quality schemes. Why five years into his mayoral term? The cyclists

would be the first to campaign if we did more blue paint on the road type

schemes. When he came in in 200 , he made 2010 his year of cycling. We

have seen an enormous amount of increase in cycling, 15% a year in

some cases, but now we are building the infrastructure to catch up with

that. How far do you accept that that is because they were

inadequacies in the structure that the airport in to begin with?

Because of the enormous success of his previous cycling policies,

things like the cycle hire, which normalised it, because of the

success of those policies, we have to put in the infrastructure. If you

were a journalist on a London newspaper looking at this in

critical terms, looking at claiming on the one hand there is going to be

a certain amount spent, but year on year only spending a fraction of it,

setting out policies trying to encourage a lot of cycling, then

redesigning it a few years later, that would be policy failure,

wouldn't it? The programme has had to be redesigned to cope with the

success. It is not a success if you haven't prepared the roads for

people and made them says, is it? In the next few months you will see

schemes like the superhighway from Acton to Chadwell Heath, a

segregated cycle track, and another one going north to the south through

the city, all of these things are in the pipeline but you cannot do that

by Friday tea-time. It would invite waste and failure if you did.

Neither of your areas benefiting here, save to cycle? Not yet! He

mounts a good defence but it has been a real shame for Londoners that

we have seen this underspend of what has been over ?150 million but

cumulatively over the last six years. I think we need

transformation in London to see the cycling go into the mainstream.

Would you be interested in this happening? I would expect it. It

will not be available for you. I represent an area in Hillingdon

where there is real concern about congestion and there is a big

opportunity. It is a great idea and in the past we have tinkered with

it. What I have been really impressed by is these ideas are

radical. They are thinking about doing something really different.

How much with limited road space, what is the impact going to be on

traffic congestion? That is one of the key reasons we haven't delivered

anything yet because we have to plan that. Is it going to have a negative

effect? No, because we have been able to plan in order to provide

more space for cyclists. It involves traffic measures throughout Greater

London, as far as the M25 in some cases. So this will have no impact

on lost -- bus delays? I think there will be but we are working to

minimise it. Organisations that often reinvest their profits into

good causes and the Coalition government has said social

enterprises are significant force for good but some have been arguing

they could be doing more to harness their energies. How can they do more

in the capital? We have been taking a look. This nursery has little

customers but the big social impact. It is the London Early Years

Foundation in Westminster which uses the profits from its services to

subsidised child care for parents who cannot afford it and it is a

good example of social enterprise. Social enterprise is a business that

puts some or all of its profits back into the community. It generally has

ethical or environmental values and in the case of business three, it

aims to help as many parents as possible get access to expensive

childcare. 40% of those who come through the door are helped by us,

we subsidise their places, so we give them a sense of social

mobility. We believe in getting children to a point where they are

ready to succeed at school. Social enterprise is a growing sector and

London is arguably leading the way. There are more than 70,000 social

enterprises in the UK, employing around 1 million people, and more

than one in five of them are based in the capital. Not all social

enterprises are as successful as the nursery. Some say the Government

could do more to help. The Government has continued to make it

difficult for social enterprises to get access to the contracts that

government offers. Very few charities, the social enterprise

parts of charities, have been able to get work under the work

programme, helping people back into work. It has been mainly exclusively

the private sector that have benefited from that so the

Government isn't really thinking through the commitment to social

enterprise that it says it has. A large proportion of social

enterprises are based in the deprived areas of London and often

provide services that many rely on, which could present risks. What

happens if they fail? If the social enterprise fails and it is

delivering a key public service that has to keep going. The same

happens in the public sector and private sector but usually there is

more ability to deal with it and put in a replacement activity, but it is

a problem if the social enterprise delivering a key public service

fails. The Big Issue is one of the most

famous and successful examples of social enterprise, helping homeless

and long-term unemployed people make money. Its founder wants the

Government to prioritise similar organisations. Hundreds of

government departments are doing this, that and the other, but they

are unconnected activities. The Government would be better to be

doing a full social and report - social entrepreneurial activity

Bring it into schools, don't leave it to people like me and the late

Anita Roddick, people who are wonderful pioneers but they are bit

flaky, make sure it is part of the school curriculum. Supporters of

social enterprises say they are invaluable, critics say they are not

without risk so is the Government taking them seriously enough?

Pretty happy with the current government support? I think it is a

real shame that we have seen life get harder for social enterprises,

not easier, certainly in terms of having access to government

contracts. That was a big part of the big society narrative. Let's

pick up on the main point about that, are you disappointed with that

progress? Big companies get the contracts when it should be social

enterprises? That is the situation we inherited. It has actually become

worse over the last few years. We were gradually breaking it down

Gareth mentioned the work programme, in fact half of the organisations in

that programme are charities or social enterprises. The biggest

provider of that is a social enterprise programme. We are trying

to make it easier for them to access finance. You will prioritise them

for government contracts? We are trying to make the playing field a

bit more level. In fact the past the Social Value Act which is all about

working with social enterprises This movement is massively

impressive, it is growing very fast. Britain leads the world in

this and the British government is recognised as the best at this. I

have delegations from Burma next week, and others all saying, we like

what you are doing. Even when there is such a focus on austerity,

finding cuts, the model is slightly more flexible, a model that has to

allow for not complete profit motive? Social enterprise movement

is massively important, these are businesses that exist to do social

good, it is magnificent, but Britain is the best in the world at

developing it and we have created a whole new market called social

investment where countries around the world are coming to see what we

are doing. At the same time we are trying, in very difficult

circumstances, we are creating new opportunities for organisations to

come in and help deliver better services. Sun Times the Government

also has to acknowledge what is not going well. 45% of social and it --

enterprises engaging with the public sector is a procurement processes

are problem. I think it is a sign things are getting worse, not

better. We know the social enterprise sector struggle with the

work programme, but if we want those services close to our communities

then I think we need to look at how we do things better across

government. Labour did nothing about this at all, let's be quite clear.

The Social Value Act didn't exist in 2010, but we are creating new

opportunities and helping them grow. Interesting stuff. Now it is time

for the rest of the political news in 60 seconds. Islington Council has

announced it will terminate the contract of firms found to be

blacklisting construction workers. Any firm applying for council

contracts must prove it does not engage in the practice. Figures were

released this week showing the number of lift closures across

London Underground. The Jubilee line was found to be the worst affected.

Thousands of households affected by noise from a possible second runway

at Gatwick would be given ?1000 per year in compensation if it is built.

A second Gatwick runway is one of the options currently being

considered by the airports commission. It is estimated that

over 4000 households would qualify. Following the death of RMT union

leader Bob Crow, there were tributes from political friends and folks.

The future political direction of the union's leadership will be

watched carefully. Some people say Bob Crow was a moderating influence

on his union. Would you want to issue a warning to the union that

they must not move harder to the left? That is not something I think

we should be doing. Not in the week the Bob Crow has died. People are

remembering what he did, his passion, his commitment, and also

what he did, in his way, in the best way he could, to work for safe and

affordable public transport. Is this ever an opportunity for people to

think politically, but the Mayor of London to push ahead with certain

things on the Tube? I think Bob Crow was beloved by his members and I

understand why. All I would say on behalf of a London commuter,

industrial action is a sign of failure marked success. -- not

success. Andrew, back to you. Has George Osborne got a rabbit in

his Budget hat? Will the Chancellor find a way to help the squeezed

middle? And how do Labour respond? All questions for The Week Ahead.

And joining Helen, Janan and Nick to discuss the budget is the general

secretary of the Trades Union Congress Frances O'Grady. Welcome

back to the programme. I know the TUC has a submission, but if you

could pick one thing that you wanted the Chancellor to do above all, what

would it be? We want a budget for working people, which means we have

to crack the long-term problem of investment in the British economy.

Certainly I would like the Chancellor to merit that title they

want of the new workers party, and take action on living standards but

if they're going to do that it's got to be about unlocking investment. In

the period where the economy has been flat-lining there has been

little business investment, but there are signs towards the end of

last year that it is beginning to pick up. But a long way to go. The

problem is we have key industries like construction and manufacturing

that are still smaller than they were before the recession. The

government itself, of course, has slashed its own capital investment

budget by half. There is plenty of good and important work that needs

to be done from building houses to improving the transport system, to

improving our schools. And the government really needs to pick up

that shovel and start investing in our economy to get the decent jobs

we need, the pay increases we need, and that in itself will help

stimulate demand. It was Alistair Darling who cut in 2011, and it s

interesting that Ed Balls in his plans for the next parliament would

run a current budget surplus by the end of the parliament as opposed to

George Osborne who would have an overall budget surplus. That gives

Ed Balls or -- more wriggle room to do what you talk about, but he is

reticent to talk about it. He does not want to say that he has an

opportunity to spend on investment because he fears if he says it he

will be attacked by the Conservatives for being

irresponsible. Why is business doing this? The recession was deeper than

any since the war and the recovery was slower than almost any since the

war. The lag, the time it takes to get over that is longer than anyone

expected. I read the same evidence as you towards the end of last year

pointing to money being released, and it depends what it is released

on, whether it is capital investment or bringing in people on higher

wages. The one surprise in the downturn is how well the employment

figures have done, but they have not invested in new capacity and they

are sitting on a lot of dosh. I looked at one set of figures that

said if you took the biggest company in Britain, they have about 715

billion pounds in corporate treasury -- the biggest companies. I think

it's reduced a little but they are sitting on a mountain in dash of

skills. Yes, but they're not investing in skills, wages, or

sustainable jobs. The new jobs we have seen created since 2010, the

vast majority of them have been in low paid industries, and they are

often zero hours, or insecure, or part-time. So it's not delivering a

recovery for ordinary working people. Government ministers, as you

know when you lobby them, they are anxious to make out that they know

the job is not done and the recovery has just begun, but the one bit they

are privately proud of, although they can't explain it, is how many

private-sector jobs have been created. A lot of unions have done

sensible deals with employers to protect jobs through this period,

but it's not sustainable. The average worker in Britain today is

now ?2000 a year worse off in real terms than they were. On a pay

against price comparison? It doesn't take into account tax cuts. The

raising of the personal allowance is far outweighed by the raising VAT.

Does the raising of the threshold which the Lib Dems are proud of and

the Tories are trying to trade credit for, does it matter to your

members? -- take credit for. It matters that it is eclipsed by the

cuts in benefits and know what is conned any more. We're going to hear

a lot about the raising of the allowance, but as long as the real

value of work, tax credits, things like that, people won't feel it in

their pocket, and they will find it harder and harder to look after

their family. When you look at the other things that could take over

from consumer spending which has driven the recovery, held by house

price rising in the south, it is exports and business investment and

you look at the state of the Eurozone and the emerging markets

which are now in trouble, and the winter seems to have derailed the US

recovery. It won't be exports. Indeed, the Obie Eich does not think

that will contribute to growth until 2015 -- OBI. So the figures we

should be looking at our business investment. And also the deficit.

The deficit is 111 billion, and that is a problem, because we are not at

the end of the cutting process, there are huge cuts to be made. I

understand we are only a third of the way through. That will

definitely affect business confidence. It is clear that the

strategy has failed. Borrowing has gone up and it's not delivered

improved living standards and better quality jobs, so cutting out of the

recession is not going to work. The structural budget deficit was going

to be eliminated three weeks today under the original plan. They missed

target after target. Every economist has their own definition of that. I

think Mark Carney is right when he says that fundamentally the economy

is unbalanced and it is not sustainable, growth is not

sustainable. But if it clicked on, it would be more balanced. It is not

just north and south and manufacturing a way out with

services, but it is also between the rich and everybody else. What do you

make of the fact that there will effectively be another freezing

public sector pay, or at least no more than 1%? Not even that for

nurses and health workers. But they will get 3% progression pay. 70 of

nurses will not get any pay rise at all. They get no progression pay at

all. I think this is smack in the mouth. Smack in the mouth to

dedicated health care workers who will feel very, very discontented

about the decision. Danny Alexander, I saw him appealing to

health workers do not move to strike ballots and said they should talk to

their department. But about what? Is that real pay cut has been imposed,

what are workers left with? So do you expect as a result of yet more

tough controls on public sector pay that unrest is inevitable? I know

some unions will be consulting with their members, but ultimately it's

always members who decide what to do. It does seem to me insulting not

to at least be honest and say that we are cutting real pay of nurses,

health care workers, on the back of a ?3 billion reorganisation of the

NHS that nobody wanted and nobody voted for. Their long-term changes

taking place here that almost talks about -- there are long-term

changes. It is how lower percentage wages have become of GDP on how big

the percentage of profits is. It seems to me there is a strong case

for some kind of realignment there. The biggest event of my life, in

this world, is the entry of a couple of billion more people into the

labour supply. At the end of the Cold War, India and China plugged

into the global economy. If there is a greater supply of that factor of

production, logically you conclude that wages will fall or stagnate and

that has been the story in this country and America and large parts

of Western Europe in the last generation. What is not possible is

for governments to do much about it. They can ameliorate it at the

margins, but the idea that the government controls living

standards, which has become popular over the last six months, and the

Labour Party have in establishing that, and I don't think it's true.

George Osborne's options are astonishingly limited compared to

public expectations. If wages have reached a modern record low as

percentage of GDP, who is going to champion the wage earner? We have

lost Bob Crow, Tony Benn passed away, so who is the champion? The

trade union movement is the champion of ordinary workers. We need those

larger-than-life figures that we will mess. Have you got them yet? We

have a generation of workers coming through. One thing about the loss of

Bob Crow is that the whole union movement has responded strongly to

that, and we want to say that we are strong and united and here to stand

up for working people and we will fight as hard as Bob Crow did.

Whoever replaces Bob Crow or Tony Benn, we can be sure they will not

come from Eton because they all have jobs in the government. I want to

put up on the screen what even Michael Gove was saying about this

coterie of Old Etonian 's. He's right, is he not? He's

absolutely right. We have the idea of the manifesto being written by

five people from Eton and one from Saint Pauls. A remarkable example of

social mobility that George Osborne, who had the disadvantage of going to

Saint Pauls has made it into that inner circle. Here is the question,

what is Michael Gove up to? If you saw the response from George

Osborne, there was no slap down and they know this is an area they are

weak on an David Cameron will not comment on it. If this had been a

Labour shadow minister making a similarly disloyal statement, they

might have been shot at dawn. But there is a real tolerance from

Michael Gove to go freelance which comes from George Osborne. It's

about highlighting educational reforms that he wants to turn every

school in to eat and so it won't happen in the future. But it's also

pointing out who did not go to Eton school and who would be the best

candidate to replace David Cameron as leader, George Osborne, and who

did go to Eton school, Boris Johnson. Michael Gove is on

manoeuvres to destroy Boris Johnson's chances of being leader.

It's a good job they don't have an election to worry about. Hold on. I

think they are out of touch with businesses as well as working

people. You ask about who is talking about wage earners. Businesses are.

They are worried that unless living standards rise again there will be

nobody there to buy anything. We are running out of time, but the TUC,

are enthusiastic about HS2? We supported. We think it's the kind of

infrastructure project that we need to invest in long-term. He could, if

we get it right, rebalance north and south and create good jobs along the

way -- it could. Thank you very much tool. I have to say that every week

-- thank you very much to you all. That's all for today. I'll be back

next Sunday at 11am, and Jo Coburn will be on BBC Two tomorrow at

midday with the Daily Politics. Remember if it's Sunday, it's the

Sunday Politics.