23/03/2014 Sunday Politics Northern Ireland

Morning, folks. Welcome to the Sunday Politics. The dust has barely

settled on George Osborne's Budget and, amazingly, for once it hasn't

all gone horribly wrong by the weekend. So, is this the election

springboard the Tories needed, and where does it leave Labour? Turns

out the big Budget surprise was a revolution in how we pay for old

age. The Pensions Minister says he's relaxed if you want to spend it all

on a Lamborghini. He'll join us later. And could the man with the

maracas be on his way to Westminster? Bez from the Happy

And coming up here: Anna Lo tells Mondays tells us about his unlikely

And coming up here: Anna Lo tells the Alliance conference she's no

regrets about going public with her support for a united Ireland, but

one veteran councillor tells us she was shocked. We talk to David Ford.

one veteran councillor tells us she stay in Axbridge. Are there ways of

making the European arrest warrant work better? -- Uxbridge. And who

better to help guide you through all of that than three journalists, who

dispense wisdom faster than Grant Shapps calls out the numbers in his

local bingo hall over a pint of beer. Yes, they're hard-working and

they're doing the things they enjoy. Cup of tea, number three. It's Nick

Watt, Polly Toynbee and Janan Ganesh.

So, George Osborne delivered his fifth Budget on Wednesday and had so

many glowing front pages the day afterwards he must be running out of

room to pin them up in on his bedroom wall. Although it's probably

a pretty big wall. For those of you who didn't have time to watch 3.5

hours of Budget coverage on the BBC, here's Giles with the whole thing in

three minutes. Budget days have a rhythm of their

own, driven partly by tradition, like that photocall at 11 Downing

Street and part logistics, how to get this important statement out and

explain to those whom it affects - us? Behind-the-scenes of a Budget

Day is much the same. This ritual red boxery may be the beginning of

the end of weeks of work behind the scenes in the Treasury and sets the

clock ticking on the process of finding out the answer to one

question. You got any rabbits in the box, Chancellor? Yes, there will be

something in the Budget we don't know about. Time marches steadily

towards the statement and already commentators are hovering over what

those potential surprises are. As Big Ben chimes, all focus returns to

the Commons, where there is Prime Minister's questions and the

Chancellor gets up and does his thing. Once he's on his feet and

remembering there is still no copy of the details, the major measures

are rapidly highlighted as they come and then put up on screen. A cap on

Government welfare spending set for 2015/16 at 119 billion. Income tax

personal allowance raised to ?10,500. Bingo duty halved, which

ticked boxes for some but was unlikely to make anyone a poster

boy. And the beer tax cut of 1p, or the froth on the top. And changes to

pensions allowing people to take their money out in one lump sum,

rather than being forced to accept a fixed annual pay-out, or annuity.

This is a Budget for the makers, the doers and the savers and I commend

it to the House. Not everyone can focus on the Budget by listening to

what the Chancellor says. We need to get a copy of the script. We do not

get that till he sits down. I'm going to go into the House of

Commons to get that right now. There will be a response on that and all

the other things from Mr Miliband. The Chancellor spoke for nearly an

hour but he did not mention one essential fact, the working people

of Britain are worse off under the Tories. It is a tricky job answering

the Budget at the best of times, though some, including Labour MPs,

think it is better to mention the Budget when you do.

Here we are. I am going to go. I am not the only journalist missing Ed

Miliband's speech. Many others leave the Chamber as the Chancellor sits

down to attend a special briefing from the Chancellor's advisory team.

I am hotfoot to the studio. There is a little more detail to the Budget

than the Budget Speech. That detail can be whether words unravel and

other interpretations emerge. By now the gaggle of supporters and

detractors are taking the debate onto the airwaves. Are you the BBC?

Have the Daily Politics packed up? No, we're still standing and, days

later, still trying to assess whether the measures announced still

seem fresh and appetising or have already gone stale in the minds of

voters? How significant are these two poles

this morning putting Labour and Tory nip and tuck? Osborne gave his party

a good bounce. It was an astonishingly theatrical coup. At

first glance, it seems like a huge gift to all people. That is where

all of the money has been channelled by this government. They have been

ultra-protected, triple locked. Pensioners have done very well and

others less well. It is not surprising. Normally a budget which

is well received on the day and the day after has unravelled by the

weekend. This time, it has not, so far. The dangerous thing for the

Labour Party now, George Osborne is the assessment this thing called the

baseline. He says, in government, you must control the baseline. The

Labour party controlled in 2001 and 2005 and he needs to control it next

time. He is controlling it on fiscal policy because labour is matching

them on everything. The danger for Labour on the big, headline grabbing

issue, which was freeing up annuities on pensions, that again

Labour was pretty much saying it was going to support it though it were

saying it has to be fair and cost-effective. On a big, policy

issue, they are following on behind George Osborne. George Osborne is

controlling the crucial baseline. Are we in danger of reading too much

into the political implications of the budget? The good thing about the

pensions policy is, if it does unravel, it will not happen for ten

years and, by that time, George Osborne will have left office.

Towards the end of his speech, I thought, that is not enough. There

is not an idea in your budget which is politically very vivid a year

before an election. What I underestimated was, how many

frustrated savers that are in the country. There are a lot of people

who are frustrated by low interest rates and tax rates on pension pots.

This was an explicit gesture for them. That is what has paid off in

the polls in the past few days. You spend all of your money on your

wardrobe, is that right? The bingo poster was a kind of get out of jail

card for Labour. It gave them something to zoom in on. Everyone

beat up on Grant Shapps, the Tory chairman. We read in the daily

Telegraph that the fingerprints of the Chancellor were all over this

poster. The Chancellor signed off it -- off on it and so did Lynton

Crosby. They referred to working class people as, they are. How did

it get into the Telegraph? We can only presume but grant Shapps made

it clear that it was not him. We had a time when Labour politicians, we

saw from the response of Ed Miliband onwards, they were not quite sure

how to react to this budget. A lot of detail had to be absorbed.

Suddenly, here is something we can talk about. You can see the thinking

behind the poster was very sensible. We are not Tory toffs, we are

interested in helping people who do not come from our backgrounds. The

wording was awful and played into every cliche. It was all his fault.

It shows how unsophisticated he was. There were people from Tory HQ

who agreed the budget. A month down the line will the budget look as

good? Probably. Once people look at it, pensions are fiendishly

conjugated. Once they look and see what it will do with people having

to pay for their own care because they can now take capital at their

pension, that will come as a shock to a lot of people with small

savings. It all be gone on their care. The polling will be neck and

neck all the way. In the past, George Osborne has been accused of

using his Budgets to tinker at the margins or pull cheap tricks on his

political opponents. Perish the thought. But the big surprise in

this year's statement was a genuinely radical shake-up of the

pensions system that will affect most people who've yet to retire. At

the moment, everyone is saving money into a defined contribution pension,

that is the type most common in the private sector. They can take 25% of

the pot is a tax-free lump sum when they retire. The rest of the money,

for most people, they are forced to buy an annuity, a form of insurance

which provide a guaranteed monthly income until they die. Annuities

have hardly been a bargain since interest rates were flat slashed

following the financial crash. Even with a ?100,000 pension pot would

only get an income of ?5,800 a year at current rates. From 2018,

pensioners will not be forced to buy an annuity. They can do what they

like with their money, even taking the entire pot as a lump some but

paying tax on 75% of it. With an average pension pot closer

to around ?30,000, pensioners would be more likely to buy a Skoda

instead of a Lamborghini. Most newly retired people who take the cash are

more likely to spend the money paying off their mortgage, helping a

family member to buy a property or investing the money elsewhere. Well,

earlier I spoke to the Pensions Minister. He's a Lib Dem called

Steve Webb. I began by asking him if he still thought the reforms might

lead to pensioners splurging all their savings on supercars. What

this reform is about is treating people as adults. For far too long,

we have said, we will make sure you save for your old age and then we

will control each year how much is spent on what you spend it on. What

we are saying is because we have formed -- reformed the state

pension, we will be much more relaxed about what people do with

their own money. The evidence is that people who have been frugal and

saved hard for retirement do not generally blows a lot. They will

spin it out. It is treating people as adults and giving them choices

they should have had all along. It is a red herring, isn't it? The

average pension pot is between 25000 and 30,000. Lamborghinis aren't an

option, correct? I gather only about 5000 people a year retiring can buy

a flashy Italian sports car. It might be about paying off a

mortgage, paying off outstanding debts. Maybe spending more money

earlier in retirement when they are fit and able and can enjoy it more.

We will give people guidance. We will make sure when they retire,

there is someone to have a conversation with talking through

the implications of spending the money early and options of investing

it. This will be a real step forward. Even if you have a much

bigger pension pot, say half ?1 million, which is way bigger than

the average, even then the marginal rates of tax will be a disincentive

to take it all out at once. You will lose huge chunks of it at the 40%

band and then the 45% band. The tax system gives you the incentive to

spread it out if the tax threshold is a bit over 10000 and the state

pension is a bit over 7000, the first 3000 you draw out in a given

year is tax-free. The next band is at 20%. Spreading your money will

mean you pay less tax. That is why, in general, people will not blow the

lot up front. They will spread it out over their retirement. You have

kept this policy quiet. Not even a hint. How did you test it? How did

you make sure it would be robust? You did not do a consultation. I

have been talking about freeing up the annuity market for a decade. The

idea of giving people more choice. The government has relaxed rules

over this Parliament. It was not a completely new idea. We know in

places like Australia and America, people have these freedoms. We

already have something to judge it by. We will spend the next year

talking to people, working it through. There will be a three-month

consultation. I want people to have choices about their own money. There

is detail still to be worked out and we are in listening mode about how

we implement it. When you announce something you cannot do widespread

consultation, for the reasons I have given, you do run the risk of

unforeseen consequences? Pension companies this morning are

indicating, you, the government can write you are looking for ?25

billion of infrastructure investment from us. You hold our shell below

the water line. That may not happen. We spoke internally about the

implications for instruction -- infrastructure. It seems to me there

will still be long-term investments. Many people want to turn their whole

pot into an income. I understand the insurance companies are lobbying,

but I'm convinced there will still be plenty of money for investment

and infrastructure. If the Chancellor's pro-savings measures

work, that will generate more savings. With no requirement now to

buy an annuity, surely it is the case that pension pots are another

ordinary savings fund, so why should they continue to get favourable tax

treatment? Bear in mind that a lot of the tax treatment of pensioners

is tax deferred so most people pay tax at the standard rate. If they

put money into a pension, they don't pay tax when they earn it, but they

do at retirement. We do want, we will still have automatic enrolment

into workplace pensions, we do want people to build up, because at age

20 and 30 nobody thinks about retirement. It is still vital that

people do reach retirement to have these new choices with a decent

sized pension pot. Pensions. Tax breaks because they were supposed to

provide an income in retirement, that is how it was structured, but

that is no longer a requirement, surely that undermines the case that

if they get tax breaks, other forms of savings should get tax breaks.

Other forms do get tax breaks, of course. The return with ISAs is tax

free. The point with pensions is that you are simply deferring your

earnings. There is a bit when high tax rate payers get a kick when they

are working and then retire on standard rate, so there is the issue

of the top getting too many tax breaks, but the basic principle that

you pay tax when you get the income seems right to me and isn't affected

by these changes. You have announced save friendly measures, are we right

to look at them as a consolation prize because savers have suffered

from the Government's policy of keeping interest rates abnormally

low? It is certainly the case that very low interest rates have been a

huge boon to people of working age with mortgages, and people who have

retired said they thought they could have got a better deal on their

savings. I think there is a recognition that whilst we have done

the right thing with pensioners on the state pension, we have brought

in the triple lock, and many will bent on -- benefit from these

changes. Why don't savers who are not pensioners get the same help?

They have been hit by low interest rates as well. Those of working

age, many of them say they have benefited from low interest rates

was predominantly people in retirement have not had the benefit.

Obviously people of working age will have benefited from the tax

allowance so it is a myth to say the Budget was all about pensioners. And

yet even when the Office for Budget Responsibility takes into account

your new measures, it still shows that over the next five years

households will save less and less, indeed the savings ratio falls by

50%. You haven't done enough. One of the things we know is that the

economy is picking up strongly, and as we have more confidence about the

future they will be more willing to consume now, so without these

measures it may be that the saving rate would have fallen further. We

want people to save and spend, it is about getting the right balance. As

the economy picks up, people will want to spend more of their money

and it is about getting the balance right. You make the point that if

people are little profligate with their private pensions, they will

have the state pension to fall back on and it will be higher than it has

been, but it is also the case that in these circumstances they will

still be entitled to housing benefit and even to perhaps some council tax

benefit as well. Do you know by how much this could put the welfare bill

up? We think the impact will be relatively modest because the sort

of people who save for a pension and make sacrifices while they are at

work are not the sort of people who get to 65 and decide to blow the lot

for the great privilege of receiving council tax benefit or housing

benefit. There will be people on the margins and

benefit. There will be people on the who retire with some capital want to

put some money away for their funeral. People like to save even

into retirement so the myth of the spendthrift pensioner I don't

believe. I think this has been rightly welcomed. Ever fancied a

Lamborghini yourself? If you turned the camera around you would see my

2-door Corsa! What's your favourite thing about an

election? Could it be the candidates ringing on your door while you're

having dinner? The leaflets piling up on your doormat? Or the endless

adverts aimed at hardworking families? Well, if you thought that

was bad enough, then you might want to consider going overseas for the

2015 election because the parties are going to be aiming their message

at you like never before. Adam's been to Worcester to find out more.

One of the most famous political figures in history lived here, she

is called Worcester woman. She was in her 30s, working class with a

couple of kids, aspirational yet worried about quality of life. But

she wasn't a real person, she was a label for the kind of voter new

Labour were trying to reach and she was later joined by Mondeo man and

several others. Doesn't that all seem a bit 90s? The technique,

called segmentation, was used by George Bush in 2004. Then refined by

Barack Obama. Rather than focusing on crude measures like cars and

hometowns, they delved into the minds of voters. It is not just

women, not just people who live in cities, but if you start to put

together these groups of people you can even in an anecdote or way

imagine who they are, what types of language and imagery might relate to

them. We have been given access to a new polling model being used here by

this firm, which is pretty close to the one we are told is being used by

the Tories. It carves the country into six personality types, and we

are trying it out on Worcester woman and wast of man. We are using an

online quiz to work out who is in which segment. Meet new monk,

Susie. She feels well represented. I know the Budget and the increases to

childcare, I think at the moment I am fairly represented. This puts her

in the category of optimistic contentment, people who feel they

are doing OK. Terry, on the other hand, isn't happy about Britain

today. Health and safety and all that! I hardly recognise the country

a living in any more? Yes. Are you ready for the result? He is Mr

comfortable nostalgia, they tend to favour the Tories and UKIP. They

dislike the cultural changes they see as altering Britain for the

worst. That sums me up. Tony is worried as well but feels much less

secure. I look forward to the future with optimism or anxiety? Anxiety.

Optimist or pessimist? Pessimist. His category is... You feel a bit

insecure, you think the Government could probably help you more? Yes.

Labour picks up a lot of these voters. This man is being asked to

do more and more at work, but he is getting less and less. I am getting

more towards the despair side. Things are getting tougher,

generally? It puts him into the segment called long-term despair,

people who feel left out. Finally, this is ever thoughtful Carol. I am

a bit of an idealist. Her idealism makes her a cosmopolitan critic. I

am a liberal person. Apparently a lot of the media fit into this

category as well. There is one group of voters we have not come across,

people who show calm persistence. They hope things will get better but

don't expect them to. They are coping, rather than comfortable.

Presumably they are all out of work. Which group are you win? You can

take the poll on the BBC website, and in the coming weeks we will be

doing our own polling using the six segments to see of the politicians

really have worked out how we think. And as Adam said, if you want to try

the survey for yourself, you can go to the BBC website and click on the

link. And we're joined now by the

pollster, Rick Nye. Welcome to Sunday Politics. We have had

Worcester woman, Worcester man, is this any different? It is a

recognition that or politician -- all politics these days is like

this. It enables them to cut them more finally. You think all politics

is coalition politics, you think they have to put together these

groups of people, not that the Lib Dems will always be in power? No,

and if you listen to the coverage these days you might think it is

about grumpy old men on the one hand with Guardian readers on the other.

It is far more complicated than that, there is a lot of churning

going on underneath which is driven by people's value systems. A lot of

this has been pioneered in the United States, very sophisticated on

their election techniques, and in Britain we are always the first to

grab whatever the New Year will is from America. How do you think this

will translate to this country? I think it means that if you are

target photo you will still get the same of leaflets and people calling,

but you will probably have different kinds of conversations because

people on the other side, the party campaigners, will think they know

more about you. Will I know who you are? If I am a party campaigner,

will I know, looking down the street, who fits into which

category? You will be able to approximate that with all of the

other data that you have gathered through polling, or doing local

campaigning, that is the idea to make sense of this vast quantity of

data people have about voters. We asked our panel to fill in your

survey. Nick is optimistic contentment, 99%. He was 1%

cosmopolitan critic, which is how he keeps his job at the Guardian.

Polly's job could not be more secure, 100% cosmopolitan critics,

and Janan Ganesh, optimistic contentment, which is what you would

expect from a financial Times columnist. What do you make of this

technique? Why are you only 99? It sounds really clever. 95% of the

population five years ago voted Labour or the Conservatives. We have

got away from that. It is coalition politics. You need sophisticated

methods. Presumably you must not lose touch with basic points. You

said it was used in the US presidential elections. Wasn't there

them moment emit Romney 's sweet when the initial response was, we

did not know the sort of people voted. His next response was, we did

not know these people existed. Unless you know about certain key

demographics, you are wasting your time. Is it important in modern

campaigning? I think it is useful because it is about attitude. We

have got Mosaic. We have got Acorn. It does not tell us very much. What

people think and feel may be different to their income. You can

be quite a high earner and anxious. You can be quite a low earner and

feeling aspirational and optimistic about the future. I think this does

get something else. In days gone by, particularly in America,

overwhelmingly, if you are in the better of segment, you would be

Republican and the blue-collar workers and some academics and

Liberals voted Democrat. In the last election, the richest 200 counties

in America voted Democrat. That is an attitude thing.

in America voted Democrat. That is an attitude thing. Income does not

tell you how people will vote. There is a huge, working-class base of

support for the Republicans. It is unavoidable. Add a time when people

no longer identify with ideologies or class blocks, you have to go the

temperament and lifestyle and manageable. In America there were

128 segments according to lifestyle and Outlook. Once you get to that

stage, it becomes close to useless. We were talking about the budget

earlier. What other polls saying about the budget? The lead of labour

has been narrowed over the Conservatives. -- Labour. Osborne

and Cameron as an academic team have always had a lead over Miller band

and Balls. This week it is about economic management. -- over Mr

Miller band. Thank you for being with us today.

It's just gone 11:30am. 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:

Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland. The Alliance

Party conference was held yesterday amidst the storm which followed Anna

Lo expressing her support for a united Ireland. She was unrepentant

about those remarks, but one veteran councillor told us she was less than

impressed. I was surprised at what she said, but I do realise that it

was her own personal opinion and it is certainly not mine. I felt quite

shocked to be honest. The Alliance leader, David Ford, joins me in

studio to discuss the fall-out from his European candidate's comments.

The new super councils took a step closer at Stormont this week, but

just what will our new super councillors be doing to earn their

50% pay rise? And with their views on those stories and the rest of the

week's political highlights, I'm joined by Gladys Ganiel and Brian

Feeney. "My motivation isn't a united Ireland, but a united

Northern Ireland" - the words of Alliance's European candidate, Anna

Lo, at her party's annual conference yesterday. It was an attempt to set

the record straight after she'd caused a storm by expressing her

support for Irish unity in a newspaper interview last week. But

one long-serving Alliance councillor has told this programme she was

shocked by Anna Lo's comments. Our Political Correspondent, Gareth

Gordon, was at the conference. She is as you know a one woman publicity

machine! Welcome to the Alliance Party conference, otherwise known as

the Anna Lo show. I'm not convinced there are any other candidates.

Since her comments supporting a united Ireland appeared, the party

refuse all requests for interviews with the European candidate. But

there was no ducking the issue here. The official party line is their

relaxed about Anna Lo's united Ireland comments. But others in the

party are anything but. Geraldine Rice has been an Alliance councillor

for 25 years. I was surprised at what she said, but I realised it was

her own personal opinion and it is not mine. But she is your European

candidate. She is. And she has been elected by the majority of the

people who were at her selection campaign. So I cannot say anything

about that. That was her... It was good at the time that she was

running. But to say about the united Ireland, I felt shocked about it. Of

the others we spoke to, some found oom's remarks -- Anna Lo's remarks

harder to swallow. She wasn't saying anything against what we have agreed

to in the Good Friday agreement that we will reflect and acknowledge what

we think. She wasn't wise to say that. I think she was naive. I don't

shi she saw -- she saw the full implications of it. Do you think she

will lose the party votes? I think she probably will. There's certainly

some. But what of Alliance's only MP who, many believe could suffer

because of the unionist nature of her constituency. Int didn't come as

a surprise, what was a surprise with us that anyone thought it was

surprising. Would it be better if she didn't say it? I think if

politicians can't be candid. I think the public are tired of spin and

people being told what to say. Anna is Anna, people love her for it and

like the fact she is direct. I like the fact she is direct and it

doesn't change what Alliance stands for. The leader dealt with it like

this. Some in society are motivated by the hope of a united Ireland.

Some are motivated by the continuation of the United Kingdom.

What unites us all in Alliances is a commment to building a united

community. This is the most important speech Anna Lo made she

chose her words carefully. When I got involved in politics, I did not

join Sinn Fein or the SDLP, parties that define themselves as

nationalist, or for whom the border question is their motivation. No, I

joined the Alliance Party, because my motivation isn't a united

Ireland. But a united Northern Ireland. At the end, the ovation was

loud and long and seemed tinged with relief. Thank you Anna, I think that

has put the record straight. Alliance will hope that is the end

of the matter, while unionist opponents will try to ensure that it

is not. And joining me now is the Alliance leader, David Ford. Do you

think your opponents will let the matter lie there? I have no doubt

unionists will try to make a big issue of it. But what are they

trying to say? We are a party that says we are for everyone and brings

together from a diverse range of backgrounds and unionism makes a big

issue of it, because one candidate having expressed her view that the

principle of consent is important, then goes on to talk tab potential

for a long time and even said it was probably beyond her lifetime. It is

confusing, Anna Lo said she joined Alliance, because it stood for a

united Northern Ireland. So why did she say in the Irish News she

supports a united Ireland. They're not the same thing. Because she

talked about it in the context of a very long-term referendum. So why is

it wrapped up as if it is a big issue. If another member of the

party said in the long-term my aspiration is Northern Ireland

remains within the United Kingdom would unionisms have made a fuss?

No, they would agree with that. The understanding of your position is

row you're a unionist party with a small U. Our default position our

commitment is to building a united community recognising the three sets

of relationships that we were talking about before others were. It

is not just unionists who were concerned, you saw Geraldine Rice

expressing reservations, saying I was surprised by what Anna Lo said

and I was shocked by it. You talked to one local councillor, yes, but

that is the nature of Alliance. We have a diverse range of views, a

diverse range of backgrounds, because the defining issue of what

unites us is the commitment to building a united community. That is

our key int point. -- that is our key point. What about the other

cashing per who say -- character who said Anna Lo was naive and perhaps

didn't see the full implications of her comments. And it may lose some

votes for the party. That was an ordinary party member, an elderly

party member. And his views don't count? Clearly his views count. But

I have seen in polling evidence that Alliance has a strong support among

younger people and poms show that younger people are much less likely

to be concerned about the 1921 argument about the border. So yes

there are some members who take a different view. Because that is the

nature of the party we are. Here is the problem, if the party faithful

are prepared to say what they said in front of a camera, you must be

concerned that some voters in the privacy of the ballot box will put

their marks elsewhere. You could lose votes over this and that is w

it matters. If I can go back to the first time I was elected and one of

my neighbours told me he had voted for me, because it wasn't a

constituencialish -- constitutional issue. But it was the nature of the

programme. So why did Anna Lo mention it. She didn't, the Irish

News asked her and she is an honest politician who tells the truth. What

a scary thought, politicians give the answers when they're asked the

questions. If you listen, in detail to the interview that she did, with

the reporter from the Irish News. She volcano unner toad --

volunteered the informationches she wasn't painted into a corner. This

was offered openly during the course of the interview. But the interview

concentrated, or her response concentrated on the key points about

the three relationships and the principle of consent and she

talkeded about -- talk about a long-term view. Whether that pleases

everyone in the party is not the issue. She was giving an honest

answer, having given the view which everyone in the party holds about

the principle of consent and the nature of the various relationships

which were cemented under the Good Friday agreement. She described

Northern Ireland as artificial, but she wants a united Northern Ireland.

That is a contradiction. No, every border in Europe is artificial. I

don't think there is one country that has stayed the same. It does

not alter the need to unite the community. In the politic world you

don't necessarily have to say things that might land you in trouble. So

you're relaxed she said it and if you could wind the clock back, you

couldn't say, don't say it? The reality is we would have been

talking about party conference and not this one issue if Anna hadn't

said that. Maybe it would have given me more chance to give our views

during this, you're choosing to make a issue of it. People are not saying

that in general terms. I am not sure people will think that. Others have

reacted to it. Members of your party have criticised it. Members of our

party have been asked and given a view. Which is critical. And we have

said all along this is not the defining issue for Alliance. You

don't want it to be the defining issue, but others see it

differently. Yes, people who think politics is solely confined to the

orange/green spectrum. But that is nottous. That is not what we are

about. That is not what people think about. You said in your speech

yesterday, Alliance is not a split the difference party whose vision is

limited to what might keep unionists and nationalists happy. The reality

is you are, that is what the Alliance Party is. Stuck in the

middle between two blocs. No, we are setting out a vision of a shared and

united community which is different from what both unionists and

nationalist are saying. You can't drive that forward. You made that

point in your speech. Remind me who the the MP for east Belfast is.

Naomi Long. The person who couldn't get the seat. You say we are going

nowhere. We are going somewhere. You think Anna Lo's comments will help

Naomi Long hold on the that position. When you talked about the

flags protest, it was said it would be the end of the Alliance party.

People need to be realistic before they take one issue and suggest that

is the end of things. You said yesterday in your speech, you talked

about issues like welfare, Maze, Long Kesh, education, all things you

want to see progress on, but there is no progress, because the other

power blocs don't want to progress the issue. That is a key point. I

talked about things where we have seen progress like the united youth

project and there are six fewer interfaith structures, because work

is being done in justice and we cannot make other people in the

Executive do the work that needs to be done, but we can demonstrate

where we have the responsibility that we are making a difference. You

acce those are in the margins. So sorry -- sorry? Compared to the big

issues you mentioned in your speech. Six sb interfaith structures

removed. United of o' how many? Out of 50. How were removed in the

preceding 20 years? None. It only started to happen since we have been

there. We are only seeing progress with the united youth project. Where

are the shared campuses. The only place where there is movement is

where Steven and I have been driving it. We need to leave it there. Thank

you for joining us. Joining us now with their thoughts are commentator

Brian Feeney and academic Gladys Ganiel. Brian Feeney does David Ford

make a stout defence of Anna Lo's position. He has to make a stout

defence of her, because she is the European candidate. But I think the

reaction to what she said has been one of sided. It is the unionists

who have gone crazy about it. The dog that didn't bark is the

interesting thing. Her comments, which she volunteered to the Irish

News are shrewd. The Alliance Party will lose votes in Belfast, but we

are only talking about a total Alliance vote of about 26,000. Now,

what they're going to do result of Anna Lo's comments is make inroads

into the SDLP vote. She is going to be much friendlier to nationalists

and they need nationalist votes. It is, the Alliance Party is a doughnut

around Belfast. They got 300 votes in Foyle over 400 in mid Ulster, so

they need nationalist votes and they're more likely to get it

because of her remarks. Do you think it could be an advantage? Yes they

will lose unionist votes, because of the last 18 months and they will

lose votes in Belfast. But it isn't just because of her united Ireland

comments, but she comes across as a modern woman and a lot of people who

would vote for the SDLP will vote for Anna Lo, because they don't like

the holy Joes in the SDLP. Are you saying that she did it deliberately?

Yes. She needs support from nationalists. A how do you view it?

I would take a different view. The trade off isn't worth it to go for

soft nationalist votes. However I think the speeches yesterday from

the platform at the conference did a decent job of trying to limit the

damage of the situation and capitalise on an opportunity to set

Alliance as a party that contain nationalist and unionist

perspectives and still work together and could be a hopeful vision. David

Ford, I can't close without asking you, was it it a calculated comment

to seek nationalist transfers. Not to the best of my knowledge. But

Gladys made an interesting point, one of the people you showed Duncan

Morrow, the spern who spoke before Paula Bradshaw, who came from a

unionist party background, because she sees the perspective of building

a united community. Thank you. Now, with a review of the political week

in 60 seconds, here's Gareth Gordon. The Alliance candidate in the

European election caused controversy when she said she would like see a

united Ireland. But her party leader supported his MLS. People describe

it as a nationalist, but she sits in the Assembly with the designation

united community. That is her primary focus. As it is for the rest

of the group. Local government reform dominated at Stormont. But

old rivalries surfaced. I understand Dr Paisley did have some Irish blood

in his vains. I haven't one drop of it in my mine. But MLSs still --

MLAs still voted for a 50% pay rise for councillors. One Sinn Fein MLA

was caught napping in the Assembly. Sorry. Top Tall. What number? Where

is it? Sorry. I was asleep. Sinn Fein's Sean Lynch caught on the hop

- Gareth Gordon reporting. Staying at Stormont, after marathon sessions

there this week, the Local Government Act cleared a major

hurdle and is now entering the final stretch before becoming law.

Councillors came under a degree of criticism from some quarters when it

emerged they were in line for a 50% pay rise after the election.

Councillors have countered that by citing their increased

responsibility and workload. But what will being on the new super

councils mean? The Vice President of the Northern Ireland Local

Government Association, Councillor Sean McPeake, joins me now. You did

take a bit of flak over this pay rise. Do you think it is fair in the

current circumstances? I don't think it is fair. When you look at the new

increased responsibilities the councillors will have, Sigg

captainly -- significantly increased responsibilities, planning,

community planning, local investment opportunities, economic development,

a swathe of additional functions that come in. And councillors will

have to and be required to step up to the mark. We heard from Brian

Wilson, a councillor, on the view who said, councillors can will have

less to do and it is a waste of money. He said it is a part-time job

and people should wise up. Brian would need to read himself further

into what is coming. There is no, I heard no one else reiterate that.

You might not, because they have a vested interest. When you look at

the functions, councils will be the local economic drivers for bringing

in investment. Major investment. The power of community planning is a

massive function coming to local government and councils will be

charged with developing the community plan that will require

resources being tar getted for the first time into local areas. A 50%

pay rise at a time of austerity when people working in the public sector

are being offered 1%. How could you defend that? 50% coming from a very

low base. When you look at 9,000 was what councillors were getting. Which

wasn't a salary. No, it was an allowance. To bed is to do the -- to

be asked to do the work that is required, it was an independent

panel that came up with the figure. You have no difficulty, you hit the

is justified and people just need to accept you all work hard and are

worth it? Given the new roles, I think there is a deficit in the

public's understanding of what the councils will be doing and once they

see the powers that are coming and the responsibilities of the

councillors, there will be a different acceptance. Maybe they

wonder about council headquarters and expensive new buildings have

sprung up. We don't know where the new super councils will be head

quartered. We have had a boundary commission saying they will be white

elephant and we will be paying for them for generations to come.

Councils will have to take their own responsibility for that. There have

been investment. But at least the investment is done. Should it have

been done? That is up to the new councils perhaps they needed them.

Perhaps they didn't? I would suggest a lot did need it to be upgraded and

that is just... It looks like self-interest on the headquarters

and the salaries, people don't like their politicians being

self-interested. You are supposed to servous. If you take mid Ulster,

there has been no new head quarters built. We will use the head quarters

we have and share the responsibility among the councils and there will be

no new head quarters built. What the council has done, we can't legislate

for that. Thank you. Let's hear a final word from Brian Feeney and

Gladys Ganiel. Gladys Ganiel, what do you make of it, 50% increase,

head quarters which may be surplus to requirements. I'm more bothered

tavb headquarters and are nervous about what will happen to them and

the potential for duplication of work at these buildings. Do you have

reserve wakeses? Yes, there are too many councillors, their standard is

poor. The increase may be an attempt to attract more able councillors.

That is what people in local government have said. That's right.

It may, well it is still an allowance and not a living salary

and not intended to be. And they will get expenses and the thing of

building new councils, it is the self-agran diezment that you get

among councillors who think they're important and now they will be more

important. But we are in the situation we are in. There is not

much we can do. Yes but to say it is a matter to tr councillors. It is a

matter to tr rate payers who are having to pay for these white

elephants. Thank you very much. That's it for now - back to Andrew

in London. decision, she will weigh up the

The big news is the popular server is struggling to control all of the

people who want to find out where they fit in the political spectrum.

It hasn't quite crashed but it is queueing up those people. Who would

have thought the Sunday Politics had so many viewers? It has never

happened on the X factor. This morning's papers don't make

comfortable reading for Labour with two separate polls showing the

party's lead over the Tories is down to just one point. And there's been

plenty of criticism of Ed Miliband's response to the Budget. Let's take a

look. You know you are in trouble when even the Education Secretary

calls you and out of touch bunch of elitist. Where is he? He is hiding!

I think he has been consigned to the naughty step by the Prime Minister.

The naughty step! And we're joined now by shadow chief secretary to the

Treasury, Chris Leslie. There was a widely criticised response by Ed

Balls to the Autumn Statement, now a widely criticised response by Ed

Miliband to the Budget. Does this show you are struggling at the

moment? Of course Ed Balls and Ed Miliband don't want to hear the fact

that in reality, for most people, life is getting harder and there is

the cost of living crisis. Did we get any mention of that in the

Budget? Of course we didn't. We were waiting for action on the cost of

living and it wasn't forthcoming. Ed Miliband came up with the tactic of

responding to the Budget without mentioning anything that was in it.

He mentioned the fact the personal tax allowance was a bit of a

giveaway but he takes more with the other hand. He is in favour of that,

right? Anything we can get but we need a lot more. Let me tell you

something else he mentioned, the fact the national debt has risen by

a third and George Osborne and David Cameron... They knew that before the

Budget. The borrowing figures were announced and Ed Miliband made

reference to those. There is not a lot of happiness on Labour

backbenchers about this, is there? And indeed not a lot of happiness in

the shadow cabinet. There is concern that Ed Miliband is on a journey to

remodel world capitalism whilst George Osborne is firing some love

bombs at Middle England by talking about freeing up the pensions market

and there is real nerves that what Ed Miliband is saying is not going

to be in tune with those middle income earners that the Labour Party

has got to attract if they are going to win the general election. When

Rachel Reeves used the medium of Radio 4 to announce you were broadly

in favour of the pension reforms announced by the Chancellor on

Friday night, was that a result of a decision taken by the shadow

cabinet? Is With annuities, they are a very old-fashioned product. There

are some serious questions which need to be addressed. Was that the

result of a Shadow Cabinet decision? We have not had a Shadow

Cabinet since the budget. We all want to make sure that we understand

the point about flexibility. No one is arguing with that. There are some

serious concerns. Let me give you a couple of examples. This is

something the Chancellor has done, he claims, for reasons of freedom

and flexibility. Is it a coincidence he is grabbing quite a lot of tax

from pensioners early on to plug a hole which is necessary because the

deficit has not gone down? Forgive me for being slightly cynical about

motives. For or against it? We need to have safeguards for protection of

pensioners. What will it do for the annuity market if most people still

want to have a steadying come for a third of their lives? -- steady

income. What does Labour have to do to get it show back on the road? The

question is, how do people feel? How many people will still not be

feeling better by the next election? Wages may be rising slightly but not

for a large and significant number of people. They were just looking at

the YouGov poll. If you look at the middle to low earners, they are

overwhelmingly pro-labour. Can Labour get those people out to vote?

They are really hurting. There are plenty of them. The question is

whether people are optimistic because they see figures as if they

look as if they are on the up or whether they vote according to how

they feel, which will still be very far behind. Cost of living has been

a major mantra from Labour. That's that this chart shows how things are

beginning to change. What this shows is that, sometime this year, after a

long time at which average earnings trailed inflation, they now overtake

it in the run-up to the election and they stay there for the forecast

period. What do you now do if your cost of living mantra is running out

of steam? I am not sure that, for most people, they will recognise the

sense that suddenly things will be getting better. Particularly the

younger generation are really feeling quite down about the

pressures they are facing to make ends meet. You can see the lines are

exaggerated because the Y axis on the side starts quite high up. It

does not start at zero. The other statistic from the OBR is that we

will not be getting back to the point where wages are exceeding

prices from the pre-banking crisis period until late 2017. There are

some really serious pressures that people are under. What they wanted

was a budget that would address concerns and, for the vast majority

of people, they will have heard the statement by George Osborne and

think, how is it really help them now? It did not address it. It is

clear that by 2015, average living standards will probably not have

returned to where they were in 2010. Average wages will not have

done that. On the other hand, the chart shows the sense of direction

is moving in the right way. Which one matters more with the

electorate? I suspect it is sense of direction. People sense of

prosperity does not need to be buoyant. It has to be something

worth preserving. We have to fear the all turn. That is what intrigued

me this week. People make too much of a fuss about the Parliamentary

response by Ed Miliband. People will forgive a bad day at the dispatch

box. What they will not forgive is the absence of a macro economic

mess. Labour have a very powerful message on living standards and lots

of popular, targeted interventions like the energy price freeze. You

can imagine they will be sufficiently nervous about that next

year. If living standards are not back to where they were, Labour can

say, are you better off now than when you were four years ago? The

reason why break and -- wallowed waken one that is because Jimmy

Carter mucked it up -- Ronald Reagan. Labour have to say, vote for

us and you will get 2 million homes. At the moment, the offer is very

modest. You need to find the money to do that. People need to

understand that housing is at the very heart of the economy, as well

as young people and their aspirations. At the moment, Labour

's offer is not spectacular in. If the focus group shows the cost of

living crisis have no longer has the attraction it did, what line do you

move onto? Yellow McCoy must remind people of the wasted years and the

cost of living pressures they have been under. -- we must remind

people. We want a recovery which has low growth, low wage. A race to the

bottom. They want a recovery that is felt by everyone, shared and felt by

all. Now, here's an idea to twist your melon. Mark Berry, better known

as Bez, it says here he's a member of something called The Happy

Mondays, wants to stand for parliament. He's best known for

being in a band, and not doing very much, so he might fit in. Here he is

in action. And Bez joins us from our Salford

studio. Good to see you. Is this a genuine candidacy or are you

twisting my melon? Amazing how time flies when you're having fun! You

having fun doing this candidacy? I am doing the job of the politicians

and standing up for the people and bringing attention to the horror of

fracking, which is a totally unsafe technology. There is no one in

mainstream politics who is discussing or saying anything about

it. It is an unsafe technology and it has been proven in America. You

see the process in America and the people out on the streets. The whole

atmosphere has been made toxic. These people are allowing it to

happen in the name of profit. This has been a Labour seat you are

fighting in Salford since 1945. It is a tough mountain. Supposing you

were to win, could you ever see yourself entering a coalition? With

a bit of luck I may be able to shame Labour politicians to do the job

properly and stand up for the rights of people. They are not and I am

having to do that job. All I am doing is causing debate and bringing

to attention the horror that is hanging on our doorsteps. It is not

only fracking but GM modified foods that they want to bring into this

country as well. Owen Paterson is one of the main lobbyists. Lobbying

is legalised bribery, by the way. It is run by the bankers. Basically, we

have to stop these monsters from getting into our country and turning

our land into a toxic waste. That is what I am trying to say. You are

raising the debate, as you are doing with us here. We do not really need

fracking. You have done that and you have talked about other things as

well. In terms of a new integrity, if you were to become an MP, would

you claim expenses? If I ever do get in charge, I would completely enter

the banking system and there would be expensive, but they would be like

bus passes and train passes. You behave like the people and you are

in touch with the people, you move with the people and do understand

what the people want. You do not live in acre Kuhn of your own making

of luxury, wealth and total disregard of everyone else. -- a

cocoon. If you did get into the Palace of Westminster and had to

mingle with all these people, who would you rather have in night out

with - Mr Cameron, Mr Miller band or Mr Clegg? I would be willing to

discuss politics with anybody. I would make them realise what they

are doing. I am glad too have a debate and with anyone. The people

of Salford, quite a lot people people behind me. I have been

speaking to Salford councillors. They are going to lend me their

support. The people of Salford, and not to forget the people of Eccles,

sending you much. We must stop this horror. There is a monster on our

doorstep and we must stop it, people. Do not forget to take your

maracas on campaign trail. Would you like a pair to shake yourself? You

shake your maracas against fracking! Thanks, Bez, goodbye. Thank you for

giving me a little platform to express my views. Now if there's one

thing that gets us hot under the collar here at the Sunday Politics

it's European elections. The only thing we like more than the

elections themselves is a TV debate about them. And we're in luck! Take

a look at this. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome leader of

the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg. Gives

the most fantastic welcome to Nigel Farage. I would challenge Nigel

Farage to a public, open debate, about whether she we should be out

all in of the European Union. I will do it for Nick Clegg. Since 2009, I

have taken part in 45% of votes in the European Parliament. Nigel

Farage has not tabled a single amendment since July 2009. Mr Clegg

has only taken part in 22% of votes in the House of commons. You can

watch the debate at 7pm on the 2nd of April over on BBC Two. And for a

chance to be part of the studio audience on the night and put your

question to the two party leaders, e-mail the question you'd like to

ask to [email protected] or tweet it using the hashtag

#europedebate. And Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage will be limbering up

this week with their first debate on LBC radio on Wednesday. Who is going

to come out the best? I suspect Nigel Farage. It is easy to portray

Nick Clegg as morally compromised, who has not asserted himself in

government. I do wonder about Nigel Farage, whether he is much better at

delivering a popular line and responding to the second question of

third question. Nick Clegg will win it hands over fist because he knows

this stuff. He is right. The evidence that he can produce about

what will happen if we pulled out of Europe will, I think, overwhelm

Nigel Farage 's one-liners. They will both be winners because you

will have the rare sight of the pro-European saying he likes the

European Union. That is unlike Eurosceptics who tie themselves up

in knots. 14 Nigel, one for Nick and one for both. There you go. Here is

a mess, it is Janen Ganesh. That's all for today. The Daily Politics is

on BBC Two at Lunchtime every day this week, I'll be back here next

week with Energy Secretary Ed Davey. Remember if it's Sunday, it's the

Sunday Politics.