23/03/2014 Sunday Politics South West

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

In the South West: Labour claims the plan to become an

In the South West: Labour claims the budget will make our housing crisis

worse. And, 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. 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

Hello, I'm Martyn Oates. Coming up minutes: We'll

Hello, I'm Martyn Oates. Coming up on the Sunday Politics in the South

West: Is the wind from Westminster blowing against the renewable energy

industry? For the next 20 minutes, I'm joined

by Ben Bradshaw, Labour MP for Exeter and Anne Marie Morris,

Conservative MP for Newton Abbot. Welcome to the programme. This week

residents of a mid`Devon village laid claim to the country's biggest

pothole. The people of Sandford have been referring to this as the

swimming pool. Some help was at hand though from the Chancellor, who

pledged another ?200 million nationally to mend damaged roads.

That, though, according to the Local Government Association will

disappear into an enormous hole itself as the total backlog of road

repairs will cost ?10.5 billion. The Budget also saw the Chancellor

offering more help for house buyers. Potholes, pensions, fuel duty frees

and possibly more regional flights. It was a good budget for the West

Country, wasn't it? Potholes is probably the biggest issue I hear

about. If you are on four wheels they are bad enough and if you are

on to, they are lethal. Generally, the pothole money is part of a

package of measures which is appealing to people in the

south`west? You have to be careful about the pension changes as there

is a lot to be discovered about the detail and concerns about whether it

will further inflame the property market.

There have been suggestions in quite a lot of financial papers since the

budget that it could lead to a further inflammation of a property

bubble. Anne Marie Morris, the local

government Association says here is money for road and pothole repairs

but at the same time, the government is cutting local council budgets.

Councils are saying free up the money as we could do the job better.

That is a fair point and I have been lobbying government hard because the

rural counties get a much lower deal than the urban communities and we

are 50% underfunded. The government repeatedly completely

ignores you, doesn't it? They listen but we have an economic challenge

left by the previous government and so finding the extra money without

taking it away from urban communities will be a problem. It is

a real issue. Generally, quite a big welcome from

business for the budget. Except from small and micro businesses, an area

you are interested in. I am not even classed as a small

business and I don't think micro businesses factored in the budget at

all. I don't export of manufacture so the budget has completely missed

me entirely. What do you make of that?

This budget was more focused on big business but when you take into

account the national insurance changes and employers allowance and

business rights and ?1000 for small high`street businesses in addition

to the cap, all of those things we've had in previous budgets.

Frankly, the last two budgets have been focused on the small business.

Let us stick with this budget which saw the chancellor offering more

help for house buyers. He's extending the Help to Buy scheme

which sees the Government playing mortgage lender and backing loans to

people trying to climb the property ladder. The basic premise of the

scheme is controversial, though, with critics claiming it could make

the affordable housing crisis worse. John Henderson reports.

Itchy feet and the same is true for six`month`old Toby's parents. The

dream of owning their own home is close to reality. They are about to

complete on a four`bedroom house in Plymouth which means Toby can leave

his granny's house. It is possible due to the governments help to buy

scheme which allows people to buy with just a 5% deposit. We wouldn't

have been able to afford it if we didn't have the 5%. If it was 10%,

we'd be staying with nan. I had to go back to work early on maternity

leave to get the mortgage as it was already on the 5% otherwise we would

still be here today. This week, the Chancellor confirmed

that the scheme, a mix of guarantees and money to stimulate new builds

and sales on older houses, would be extended. Taken all together, the

housing policies I announce today will support over 200,000 new homes

for families. We are getting Britain building. But the scheme isn't

without its critics. Not a game changer was how the Royal Institute

of Chartered Surveyors described it and labour was also unimpressed.

They will not stand up to vested interests, developers sitting on

land, even though they cannot solve the housing crisis without it.

Labour has issued a "use it or lose it" threat to big developers. House

builders say they are not hoarding land and other says the planning

system needs changing. On this site in Exeter, they have been trying to

build three houses for three years and some say central government

should do what it can to make things happen. What you could regard as

sterile land needs to be brought back into production. Anything that

can be done to incentivise builders and local authorities to produce

land that is necessary is really important. Others feel the scheme

will stoke up the market and lead to a housing bubble. We must not now

settle for a short`term spurt of growth fuelled by an old`fashioned

property boom. But the estate agents who have

helped Laura say that while transactions are up 40%, prices are

sensible. But more sellers would help. It is getting the balance

right. It isn't in anyone's favour for there to be a bubble in the

market. We want steady growth, for people to be able to move and for

there to be a similar amount of sellers and buyers. That's the best

market I've seen. Toby and Laura should soon be on

their way. Goodbye granny's house and hello new home. Bye!

This concern that we might be fuelling another housing bubble,

people in your party are concerned as well. It is a concern, isn't it?

It is something we need to be careful of. The reality is from all

the reports I've seen, house prices are gently going up although not

very much in the south`west, nobody is laying that at the door of this

scheme. There is a revision of figures for growth up and says `

report says house prices will increase by 8.5% by the end of this

year and that is something, isn't it? It would be if it translates to

that. It is about what is the driver. The economy is improving so

house prices are moving back to where they are and if that is

happening that is a good thing. If we break `` build houses, prizes ``

prices should not go up as fast. The more supply there is to meet the

demand, inevitably the prize doesn't keep rising. It sounds as if the

government is singing from the Haim sheep `` same hymn sheet as Labour?

It is not doing nearly enough to encourage supply and that is why

house prices are projected to rise this year. I agree with Vince cable

that there is a danger the government is stoking a pre`election

house price bubble for political reasons and the recovery objectively

there in the economy is not being felt because it is based on property

value and private debt. But planning minister said a few months ago that

to have more houses, you need to have more people in a position to

buy them and that makes sense as well?

But there aren't enough affordable houses out there. People 's wages

are going up 1% if they are lucky and house prices by much more.

People in the south`west already have the biggest gap between house

prices and salaries and it is getting wider.

What about the point Ed Miliband was making saying the developers are

sitting on land waiting for the value to go out? It is a scatter`gun

approach policy. We are trying to have a proper approach which means

looking at where is the best place to have the development involving

local communities. That was part of the Regent `` reason for the changes

we put in place and it will help enormously but we're not doing

anything to help the supply? There is a lot we are doing. In the budget

there was an extra pot set aside for the small developers so if they have

not been able to get finance, they can build.

Do you back this notion of forcing developers to develop? Identically

with that. Local authorities know where this land is. Local

authorities are certainly know that and they will be given the power if

they are aware of pockets of land which would make good development

for housing and if developers are sitting on it. Anything we can do to

increase the supply and not just the demand has to be the right thing.

The problem continually sits there. We have been flat`lining in terms of

house`building under both governments. No, it has gone up 23%

since we came into power. We have been building a lot more houses.

Down in the first two years but it has gone up in the last year. We

need a lot more affordable home `` homes to rent and we need more new

towns. We need affordable new hands as well as market. We need them

properly plan not urban stretch like out of Exeter.

The Chancellor also moved to cut energy bills on Wednesday by

freezing the tax on burning carbon. He insists the Government's

commitment to support green energy remains unchanged. But voices in the

renewable energy industry say it's another nail in the coffin for the

Coalition's claim to be the greenest government ever. Tamsin Melville

reports. Green campaigners were at

Westminster this week ahead of EU carbon cutting talks. Wind farms `

one way of tackling these climate issues, but the government is under

increasing pressure on the number of applications.

Small, rural communities are plunged into what can only be described as a

miserable ordeal. Immediately, there is a cloud of uncertainty over their

lives. A carbon tax freeze in the budget has left another question

mark over the government's commitment to green energy. We need

to think about where our energy is coming from. I think my complaint at

this point is that the government's policy is all over the place and it

really isn't coherent enough to enable business to plan. A few years

ago, George Osborne announced a measure called the Carbon Price

Support which increased the cost of burning fossil fuels and was opposed

to encourage low`carbon plants like nuclear and wind farms. When he

introduced it, George Osborne said investment in green energy would

never be certain unless there was some stability to the price of

carbon, but now he is scrapping his plan to increase the cost of high

carbon energy. I am capping the carbon support rate

of ?18 per tonne of carbon dioxide from 2016/17 for the rest of the

decade, saving a mid`size manufacturer almost ?50,000 on their

annual energy bill. The Chancellor is keen to stress it

will not mean a reduction in investment of renewable energy, but

the industry says it sends an unwelcome message to the sector. It

is bad news for investors because a long`term framework was supposedly

stable and robust but George Osborne has changed it at the first sign of

trouble. It doesn't give a strong message that low`carbon investment

in generation is a good place to put money. Late last year, the plug was

pulled on the Atlantic Array project, plans for a massive wind

farm off the north Devon coast. Developers said it was not

financially viable and other ambitious South West projects have

also fallen by the wayside. Plans for wind turbines on this old World

War II airfield near Davidstow were scrapped earlier this year. There

has been a lot of local opposition but the company behind the plans,

Community Windpower, blames it on what it called the government's

constantly shifting position on UK renewables. The company also closed

its office in nearby Camelford that offered people energy advice. The

Chancellor say his carbon tax freeze will save people ?15 a year on their

energy bills and that it does still care about the climate but has to

act to keep British business competitive.

Tamsin Melville reporting and to discuss this we're joined by Mark

Robins from the RSPB which is a member of the Climate Coalition ` a

lobby group concerned about global warming. I noticed you were nodding

away while the representative for saying it was a terrible thing. In

fairness, a lot of people in the green lobby thought the carbon price

was in itself a bad thing. The climate change committee and

Greenpeace said it is precisely the sort of measure that destroys public

confidence in environmental policies.

I don't think there are many in the environment movement which `` who

say it was a wonderful mechanism but taking it away creates mixed

messages for those who want to do the right thing and develop low

carbon. You are talking about general signals, but in terms of the

specific policy, there is an argument that people like yourself

yourself make that it doesn't cut emissions either. You have to be

careful about who is picking up the cost of climate change. The Prime

Minister himself reaffirmed his commitment to climate change being

the biggest threat to humanity on this planet. It includes all life on

this planet. This issue about who picks up the cost about climate

change has been exposed this winter by those suffering from floods and

the railway industry `` infrastructure. The south`west has

been hit hard. The carbon price floor doesn't do anything for the

environment but it puts energy bills up so it is a lose, lose policy? But

George Osborne took it away and put nothing else in its place. Better

mechanisms could be found but he has replaced it with nothing. OK, Anne

Marie Morris not a ringing defence of the carbon price floor itself.

Looking at previous cuts in renewable energy subsidies and

reports there said that people were pulling out of investments. The

general message to the renewable industry isn't great, is it? The

comment a moment to bow `` the moment ago was incorrect, he has

capped it. We have to bear in mind that renewables are important but

wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine all the time

so you still have to have the more old`fashioned carbon technologies

and you cannot price them out of viability. The challenge is getting

the level right and the chancellor admits he set it too high. We are

not competitive with Europe at the moment. Our manufacturers are

seriously thinking of going abroad because electricity is cheaper. But

this government is chipping away, making various productions

effectively in its financial commitment to renewables. A lot of

people might look ahead and think, if the Conservatives get a majority

and a fair number of people share the view that wind power is

pointless, why would we invest? I would agree. Yes, there has been

tinkering but would you rather a government put in a measure and

ignored whether it was hitting the spot or would you rather have one

who looked at it and said, we are trying to sport renewables but we

don't want to penalise the carbon industry. We have to realise there

has to be some energy to boil the kettle at other times. The result of

the decision is to favour the dirtiest form of energy we have. It

is a Chancellor `` disaster. You are nodding, but Labour isn't keen on

the carbon price for itself, is it? Mark is right. It was the only

instrument we had. The constant changing of the goalposts. In a

country like Germany with a far higher level of renewable energy

production, they have done it with long`term incentives for the

renewable industry. When you have constant changing, where is the

incentive for our fledgling renewable industry? It is important

in our region. Big players in the industry say that. You have to look

at who is saying it and from what interest? There are always two

sides. But business likes of security and they like to know they

can invest with as much security as they can reasonably expect? But in

terms of the comment it will help the dirty energy, there is an

additional provision in the budget which says Waite who have combined

heat and power which is the most efficient, 55% efficiency, and there

is a subsidy for them, and they have been exempt when complying with this

carbon floor levy. We need to have a balance. This is relatively new

territory and we have done more than Labour did in the grand scheme of

things. I believe we are giving business security but we need to

make sure it gives the right security and the right message.

Investment in renewables has fallen from when we were in government. We

are having fewer wind farms approved, onshore and offshore. We

are going backwards. Now, our regular round`up of the

political week in 60 seconds. Calls for a new railway mainline

through Central Devon from the MP for Central Devon. Could I urge my

right honourable friends to take the proposal seriously and perhaps to

visit Okehampton with me to perhaps visit local businesses and others to

hear their case for the advantages it presents to them.

Calls to legalise euthanasia as a Dorset man gets a suspended prison

sentence for the attempted murder of his mother. How much better would it

have been if there was a law in this country where the lady herself could

have requested upfront an assisted death.

?120,000 of government money to support the Cornish language.

The possibility of new flights from regional airports including Exeter

and Newquay. We want all parts of our country to see better links with

the markets of the future. And the Chancellor freezes duty on

ordinary cider specifically, he said, to help flood sodden West

Country farmers. You represent Dawlish. We've heard

this call for an additional line through Central Devon. There is a

risk that when a railway needs upgrading, we get involved in

conflicting schemes and infighting? In large measure, MPs across the

South West to recognise that line which goes through Dawlish is

mission critical. Whatever else we do, that must be maintained. We are

talking ten plus years and millions of pounds.

Then, your constituency isn't affected but you took a keen

interest? Yes and everyone will plead for their own line but what

matters is that there is a resilient line for the whole of the

south`west. We should wait for the outcome of the Department of

Transport's review. We can't have you on the programme without talking

about cider. A freeze on duty... I am still waiting for my crate of

cider by the way! I am delighted the duty was present but puzzled by

their duty wasn't. That's the

decision, she will weigh up the factors. Andrew, back

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.