16/03/2014 Sunday Politics West Midlands

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

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

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

top story. Ed Balls says millions of people

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

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

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

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

means no chance And in the Midlands, we must build

more homes where people want them than not where they don't. So why

are brownfield sites overlooked by developers with designs on our green

spaces instead? restoring confidence in the safety

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

something different. And with me as always our top

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

tweeting their thoughts using the hashtag #bbcsp throughout the

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

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

delivering his 2014 Budget. The Chancellor has already previewed his

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The big economic variable is business investment. Even during the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Osborne announcing the rays in the personal allowance will go

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

their priority was helping the lowest paid which is a useful

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

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

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

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

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

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

certainly clarified matters. UKIP say it just shows the mainstream

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

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

securing a referendum. Giles Dilnot reports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

membership: the largest rebellion against a Tory prime minister over

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

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

coalition Government including selfie-conciously-pro European Lib

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

seem undaunted by the clarifications of the other parties, campaigning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

were quick to capitalise on the announcements, saying only the

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

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

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

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

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

how they voted before is complicated, and what dent they

might make on Conservative and Labour votes in 2015 is trickier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

any support the other parties have previously enjoyed.

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

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

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

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

way between now and the next election, and Conservative party

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

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

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

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

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

that Labour will match the Conservative pledge by the next

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

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

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

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

Remember, two thirds of our voters would never vote Conservative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

situation in key marginals, especially where all three parties

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

the local elections and the European elections, there are target

constituencies where UKIP has a reasonably good chance of winning a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

elections will likely change the party stands and position on a

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

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

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

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

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

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

are taking votes from the Conservatives and the Liberal

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

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

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

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

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

third of our voters are Conservatives. When we have polled

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

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

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

Conservative under any circumstances so the arithmetic does not suggest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

national television on the alternatives of the European Union

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in those communities. Your deputy chairman Neil Hamilton is another

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

explaining that that allegation was made using Parliamentary privilege

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

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

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

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

the establishment are becoming terrified of UKIP and they will use

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative party, including the former chancellor Norman Lamont

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by the former Conservative chancellor Norman Lamont, in Salford

by the former Labour Cabinet minister Hazel Blears, and in

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

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

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

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

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

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

forever and forever increasing the personal allowance and not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

raise the threshold for national insurance contributions, which is

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

threshold? We are concentrating on raising the lower threshold because

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

general principle that people should participate and paying, and also

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Malcolm's argument where everybody should pay something so

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

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

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

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

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

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

concentrated on a simple tax proposition. Norman is ignoring the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you reintroduce the 10p rate? Significantly better off. I don't

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

reservations about the Labour Party promises. But they followed your

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Secretary of the TUC, joins us discuss the

Hello once again from the Mhdlands. I'm Patrick Burns. And we'rd joined

today by a pair of radical reforming mavericks. A Labour MP who's

actually campaigned for electoral reform. And a Conservative LP who

wants all`women short lists. Caroline Spelman, Conservathve MP

for Meriden, and former Envhronment Secretary. And Richard Burddn,

Labour MP for Birmingham Northfield, is a Shadow Transport Minister. A

very warm welcome to you both. First of all today, let's t`lk about

what George Osborne's Budget briefcase might have in store for us

here. He was in our part of the country earlier this year, `t the

headquarters in Coleshill, Warwickshire, of the car parts maker

Sertec. 400 new jobs there were he said, a vote of confidence hn the

Midlands and in his economic plan. And all the signs are that, on

Wednesday, he'll be sticking to that plan. Plan A. And, Caroline, the

problems with Plan A is that, in the public mind, it is so often equated

to cuts, cuts, cuts. That mdans blame, blame, blame for your

government, especially health workers with a very stingy pay deal.

Let's be clear that Plan A has delivered the fastest rate of growth

of any economy in Europe. And I think it absolutely vindicates the

standards that George Osborne took. `` the stands. We inherited a

mammoth deficit from the last government. And we've still got the

job to finish off repairing the nation's finances. But

notwithstanding that, 1.6 mhllion jobs are being created in the

private sector. Many of thel here in the West Midlands. Huge success of

companies like Jaguar Land Rover. So let's not take away from thd success

of Plan A. No doubt that is an argument that he will put on

Wednesday. But what do you think should be in that briefcase on

Wednesday on budget day? Goodness knows. I mean, it is good to see

things looking up a bit. But it s frankly taken long enough. @nd I

think what this budget has got to address is what my constitudnts

said. What ordinary people feel You know, I was just told this lorning

about there being 1800 referrals to foodbanks, just in my area. Five

years ago, there was 20 young people long`term unemployed. Now, xou're

talking about 240. What we need we think, is a jobs guarantee for young

people, so we start to give young people the opportunities th`t they

deserve. More and more people, especially young people, ard feeling

disconnected from this recovery elsewhere. A couple of things.

People often misunderstand that it is the huge increase in energy

prices globally that has made it very hard for people with their

household budgets. You've got to keep the lights on. So you're going

to pay your electricity bill. That means, if there is food avahlable

that you can get from a foodbank, people will tend to go. And what

about the million apprenticdships that are being created to connect

young people at the end of their education with a job? I think that's

been a very successful policy. Briefly, Richard, I heard Ed Balls

in Birmingham saying that hd was daunted by the prospect of becoming

Chancellor. Should a British public welcome a Chancellor who fedls

daunted? I think it's perfectly realistic. I mean, when the next

general election comes along, you will have had five years of frankly

the wrong policies. So it's going to be a big, big task. But I think

Caroline's right. Energy prhces are an issue. That's why we want to see

a freeze. OK. Thank you. Still to come, the UKIP leader Nigel

Farage under attack. Ridiculed at the Liberal Democrat conferdnce in a

send`up that's gone viral on the internet. Then rounded on in the

European Parliament by a former colleague. We'll have much, much

more on all this coming up ` little later.

Well, now, "To build more homes in sensible places. Making the most of

every inch of brownfield land". That's the declared intent of the

Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles. And yet, time and time again, we

hear there's a dash by developers for greenfield sites, while

brownfield ones lie untouchdd. Here's our BBC Stoke Political

Reporter Phil McCann. It was all meant to look so

different. Where neighbours once lived, now dereliction. Thotsands of

terraced homes were meant to be knocked down across Stoke`on`Trent

under the national Pathfinddr programme. People come down here and

see these here. Then they sde that round the corner, and they don't

want to buy these. There is such an eyesore around the corner. This was

the vision of the future. A rejuvenated housing market that has

been realised in some parts of the city. But elsewhere, the terraces

have gone, but locals are still waiting for developers to move in.

It would make a lot of diffdrence, because it would make the area look

nice. And you would have a lot more people living around here. Hn 2 03,

leaders here in North Staffordshire hoped their renewal scheme would

lead to the demolition of around 14,500 houses. But when the

government scrapped the schdme three years ago, fewer than 2000 have

actually been knocked down. But they also hoped it would lead to the

rebuilding of around 12,500 homes. But by 2011, only a few hundred had

been completed. There is finally progress, though.

On this site, 140 homes are being built where once terraces stood We

are able to provide local investment in the economy. We are provhding

seven new apprentices. 50% of the labour on`site will be from local

community. We are investing in community projects. It helps

regenerate the area as well as providing good quality houshng. The

City Council in Stoke`on`Trdnt insists things are finally looking

up. But admits developing ddrelict brownfield land is difficult. We

know that there are more attractive sites, like the greenfield, but we

know that we've got lots of brownfield sites. It's about how we

make them more attractive to developers. The problem for places

like Stoke`on`Trent is placds like this in nearby Newcastle`under`Lyme,

where developers would rathdr build after the government changed

planning rules. A recent proposal here was refused. But the fdar is

the builders will just try `gain. There are significant numbers of

sites, both within the borotgh and more so in the city of

Stoke`on`Trent. But all brownfield sites that are begging for

redevelopment. Clearly, if xou go ahead and build on greenfields,

these sites will remain vac`nt and will be a blight on the landscape.

Developers applying for planning permission are represented by

companies like this one. So should the government intervene? The

government needs to have a programme over and above its affordable

programme, which is important. But a programme to get brownfield land

cracking again and get the balance of brownfield and greenfield that

currently isn't there. The government insists planning policies

prioritise brownfield development. But developers are finding ht easier

to prioritise the countryside. Yes, the challenges of building new

homes where they wanted and not where they are not. Phil McCann

reporting there. Let's get `n expert view on this from a leading

consultant on planning, regdneration and the preservation of the

countryside. Gerald Kells h`s long experience working with, among

others, the Campaign to Protect Rural England. We've seen there a

variety of explanations for this apparent shortfall of brownfield

development. As an expert in this field, what is your explanation for

what is happening? I think one of the bigger fundamental problems is

this obsession with very long` term housing numbers. That forces local

authorities to allocate large amounts of greenfield land. We had

it under the regional space strategy. We were supposed to get

rid of it. It still seems to linger on. The other issue that was raised

there was about where is thd money to support brownfield development?

We've seen in Stoke` on`Trent the loss of one form of funding. Places

like the Black Country despdrately need jobs for local people, building

local houses. We need to have that as well as the right planning rules.

I'm not sure we're at a point where we can say that really brownfield

land is getting prioritised over greenfield. And there are obvious

difficulties, from the point of view of developers, often the cost of

demolition. Sometimes this can involve contaminated land as well.

So, in a way, you can understand if there is a greater attraction in

simple greenfield development. Quite obviously, there are advant`ges in

developing on a greenfield site You have to incentivise develophng on

brownfield land. But it is not entirely that. There has bedn a long

history over the lobbying that has been done by house` building

interests to get greenfield land allocated. And once it is allocated,

to have the easier option. @nd that is something which is very worrying

with them the National Planning Policy Framework and the wax it is

actually working out in Loc`l Authorities. And the pressure they

are being put on to allocatd greenfield land. And yet, in

Caroline's constituency, in North Solihull.

In Richard's Longbridge, possibly one of the biggest brownfield sites

of all, there has been a lot of both new build and refurbishment of

existing stock. Yeah, some of that is hangovers from the past. But some

of that is new and very valtable. But we are also seeing other things

working against that. The government makes a very strong statement

recently about green belt. But greenfield land which is outside the

protected green belt has bedn very vulnerable. And you can see that

across areas like Staffordshire and Warwickshire. I mentioned

Longbridge, Richard, becausd in your constituency there, the govdrnment

policy clearly does appear to be working. Well, I mean, therd are

2000 houses being built there. And that is good news. But we rdally do

need to get house` building going faster. And I think there are

different ways we can do th`t. That's why we've set up this special

commission to look at this. But one of the things we've got to get

through to developers, something which Gerald was alluding to, is

there's got to be that they have to know that, in a sense, if they don't

use it, they are going to lose it. We've got to make sure that sites

that could be developed for housing, and are sustainable, and th`t is

important, actually are devdloped. Not just sitting there waithng for

the price to go up. Eric Pickles walks the walk, talks the t`lk. Says

he wants to see brownfield development. But under his watch,

the record shows that it's just not catching up with where it ndeds to

be, brownfield. Well, there is an enormous downtown in the hotsing

market. And one of the big problems is that people were overstrdtched

financially and the banks are reluctant to lend. But set `gainst

that, right through that financial crisis, we've been building

affordable homes in Solihull. Eric Pickles' department has givdn

Solihull Council ?9 million worth of loan to get this programme going.

But isn't it a drop in the bucket by comparison with the scale of the

problem we've got? There ard actually a thousand extra homes in a

borough where we've got housing waiting lists. The important point

about regenerating council dstates, and you can do it anywhere hn the

country, you can do that in Birmingham, is that the land values

are sufficiently low that you can deliver affordable housing. Of

course the developers want to build on greenfield, because they can sell

expensive homes with a lovely view in greenfield sites. But wh`t isn't

in place is no infrastructure. The advantage of a brownfield shte is

the infrastructure is already there. It is usually close to work, to

jobs, and a more sustainabld solution. Does that sound rdasonable

before we go back to Gerald? I think that is fair. It is important we

prioritise brownfield, but we got to be doing it in practice. And this is

where I think another thing Gerald said is right. House`building has

got to be linked to employmdnt creation. It's got to be linked to,

in the jargon, regeneration. If we do that, we can get things going.

But we haven't seen enough of that in the last few years. Quickly. And

councils who do build more homes for people get a new homes bonus. And

that is an incentive to regdnerate these sites. Final word on this to

you, Gerald. If you ruled the world, what is your position? GERALD

LAUGHS. The new homes bonus doesn't just go if they build on brownfield

land, it goes wherever they build. So that doesn't get us out of this

kind of conundrum. But one of the real issues is that if you go out to

some of our villages around the area, and they are being intndated

with applications to build, because of the allowances in the National

Planning Policy Framework. Clearly, we could proceed further. Btt very

briefly... Very important for all listeners is that, if a loc`l plan

is in place to protect the villages, that's the most important thing

That's it. Time is up. If they get it through. Thank you very luch

Particular thanks to you, Gdrald, for being here today.

Right, two months to go to the European elections. And, surprise

surprise, UKIP are having the heat turned up on them. First thd Lib

Dems attacked the "negative politics" of the smiling man

drinking a pint and smoking a cigarette. Then a local MEP, who

split from UKIP just months after being elected, rounded on Nhgel

Farage's use of taxpayers' loney in the European Parliament. Elhzabeth

Glinka explains. There now follows a partly satirical

broadcast by the Liberal Delocrats. Solihull MP, Lorely Burt, pdrformed

her own unique impersonation of the UKIP leader Nigel Farage at the

party's conference in York. Complete with mask, pint of beer and

obligatory cigarette. Hello, everybody. LAUGHTER. Nige hdre!

I'm looking for my mate Nick. The clip has gone viral, with

thousands of internet hits so far. Her Conservative opponent in next

year's general election, Julian Knight, described her efforts as

embarrassing. UKIP supporters called it petty. That was relatively gentle

compared to what followed from West Midlands MEP, Nikki Sinclaire, in

the European Parliament. Mr Farage, with unemployment still a problem

across Europe and indeed thd UK does Mr Farage think it's a fair use

of taxpayers' money, namely his secretarial allowance, to elploy not

only his wife Kirsten, but his former mistress Annabel Fuller? Is

this a responsible use of t`xpayers' money, Mr Farage? I don't sde any

need to answer that at all. UKIP later added the comments were

beneath contempt. Miss Fulldr said the allegations were false. Nikki

Sinclaire is also currently the subject of an inquiry by West

Midlands Police into accusations that she conspired to defratd the

European Parliament over her expenses. An accusation she denies.

Nikki Sinclaire, who'll be standing for her We Demand a Referendum Now

party in the European electhons And, Caroline, in a way, thhs

demonstrates that both Lorely and Nicki can go after Nigel Farage in a

way that maybe your party is reluctant to? Because it dods have a

habit of rebounding against the Tories when they go for UKIP in the

past? That is something important to go for here. Voters in the West

Midlands, in good faith, voted UKIP at the last set of European

elections. And both UKIP MEPs have split from their party, takhng the

funds of a member of the European Parliament to set up their own

party. `` of a European party. I think that's a betrayal of trust.

And I think people should think hard about that when they vote in the

next European election. UKIP is a protest party. It takes frol all the

parties. But I think the important point is, uniquely here in the West

Midlands, those UKIP MEPs pdople thought they voted for are no longer

UKIP. Well, there will be plenty of opportunity for UKIP and thd other

two parties we're talking about here to have their say in the cotrse of

the forthcoming campaign. Btt Richard, maybe you are not too keen

to have a go at UKIP too hard? Because it might be in your party's

interests for them to do re`sonably well this summer? It's cert`inly

true the Conservatives have got a UKIP problem. And that is why.. You

have as well. That is why you see the Prime Minister trying to play to

the party's right wing. But I think that, as far as UKIP is concerned,

we do need to understand wh`t they are. There was a councillor recently

that, for goodness sake, was blaming the winter floods on gay marriage.

It is a pretty weird party. If you are going to have a go at the Prime

Minister, I suppose maybe they can go back at you and say Ed Mhliband

is still on the fence. Becatse, in a way, what we have seen this week is

a compromise from Ed Miliband between those in the party who

really feel that they don't want to be distracted in government by the

European issue. And the othdrs that feel we've got to say something to

the electorate, because people think it is a metropolitan elite hn the

party that looks out of touch. Yes, what Ed Miliband did this wdek was

to tell it as it is. What wd said is that, if there is going to be a

transfer of powers to the Etropean Union, there would be a refdrendum.

Is that likely? Probably not. I mean, that is simply telling it as

it is and I think it is realistic policy. Interestingly as well, it's

been welcomed by most of thd wealth creators in this country. OK,

briefly, Caroline, ructions in your party if you come behind UKHP and

Labour in the summer election? I think it is going to be a dhfficult

set of European elections. We need to be clear about that. Bec`use

people tend to use it as a protest vote. But also, the turnout goes

right down, down below 10% hn some parts of my constituency. I would

just urge people to think h`rd about this. 50% of our exports ard to the

European Union. And to focus really on this question of who you want to

represent you. OK, thank yot. Well, suddenly it's "Greater

Birmingham" this. "Greater Birmingham" that. The Greatdr

Birmingham Chambers of Commdrce Greater Birmingham Professional

Services Academy. And most significantly, the Greater

Birmingham and Solihull Loc`l Enterprise Partnership. And it was

their chairman, Andy Street, who explained in the Telegraph on Sunday

why he wanted to get rid of that "second city" tag.

Richard, as a Birmingham MP, is Greater Birmingham going to fly as

an idea? I hear people in the Black Country say, "Hands off, Birmingham!

No more land grabs, thank you." I think the key thing is th`t, in

this region, we've got to work together. And I've got to s`y Andy

Street and the local enterprise partnership have been doing a good

job on that. And we maybe do need to get over something of a hang`up with

titles. If you look at Manchester, the fact that the city of M`nchester

geographically has got Salford as part of it. They don't see

themselves as rivals on that. They see themselves as part of a Greater

Manchester project. And I think we can do the same in this part of the

Midlands. Caroline, you are someone that's taken a long interest in

these local government structures thereof. Are we saying, in ` way,

maybe Birmingham is too big for some things? Like children's services

notoriously. Maybe too small for, say, Digby Jones' vision of the

wider West Midlands and the structural planning and transport

that looks at wider region? It's not easy for the surrounding sm`ller

local authorities to work together with such a huge local authority.

The largest in the land. But I think they've chosen to be part of the

Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Economic Partnership

demonstrating they want to work together. But they will want to keep

their identities separate and clear. I mean, of the most important

regional, indeed national, `ssets are in Solihull. Birmingham Airport,

for example. The NEC. so wotld you support the idea in principle? A

quick idea from each of you on that? I think that it should be Greater

Birmingham and Solihull. Solihull is the engine room in the West Midlands

economy. I'm a Solihull Borough MP. You would expect me to say that

Richard? I think we can havd the title and we can still have the

identities for Solihull and elsewhere. Interestingly, the thing

about Birmingham's size. Th`t's why devolution inside Birminghal is

important. I say that as a Birmingham MP. Interesting stuff.

Thank you very much indeed for the moment.

Well, let's catch`up with more of the political developments that have

been making the news over the past seven days. Our regular round`up in

60 Seconds is brought to us this week by BBC Midlands Today's Sarah

Falkland. Medical professionals in Shropshire

are suggesting a brand`new hospital with a state`of`the art acchdent and

emergency unit could be built as part of changes to the NHS hn the

county. Around 20,000 new jobs could be

created in Staffordshire after a ?20 million City Deal was agreed between

the government and local authorities.

Plans for Muslim cemetery in Solihull have been withdrawn. More

than 160 objections were made about the application to build thd private

cemetery near Catherine`de`Barnes. 20mph speed limits are to bd rolled

out in parts of Birmingham. In keeping with the spirit of the

policy, it's being introducdd slowly, starting in the citx centre.

And a protest at Westminster as MPs again debated the Gloucestershire

and Somerset badger cull. It was deemed ineffective by indepdndent

scientific assessors. And this well`known Brummie bird`watcher

isn't impressed. I seriouslx think this government is one of the

biggest enemies of the Brithsh countryside and its wildlifd that

there has ever been. Bill Oddie clearly not a fan,

Caroline. If you were still Environment Secretary, would you

have done this badger cull differently from how Owen P`terson

is handling it? I made the original decision, because there are no easy

answers. There is no vaccind that will survive being consumed by the

badger to vaccinate it against TB. There is no easy answer. Me`nwhile,

we are putting down 28,000 cows a year at a cost to the taxpaxer of

?100 million. It's a very dhfficult one. Is there a serious risk here?

We have had the terrible history of the beef ban. Is there a danger of a

similar thing happening to dairy products? The problem is, if you

vaccinate cattle, we would not be able to export it, because ht masks

the disease. So really, my successor is between a rock and a hard place.

Nowhere else in the world h`s TB been eliminated from cattle without

also tackling it in the wildlife population. What would you say to

Bill Oddie, who thinks that your government's record on the

countryside generally is terrible? I wouldn't agree. That's a swdeping

statement and ignores the f`ct that they introduced the first n`tural

environment White Paper for 20 years. Biodiversity offsetthng,

which I'm sure Bill is all hn favour of. Nobody wants to kill badgers. We

love badgers. But we have also got to eradicate the disease. Briefly,

as a town MP, are you one of these urban MPs who know little and care

less about the badger cull, Richard? I am also on the fringe of the

countryside in Longbridge, of course. But TB is a dreadful

disease, TB in cattle, no qtestion. But the badger cull was not

effective, is not effective, and all too often can be cruel. And that is

why I voted against carrying on with the badger cull. OK, let's leave it

there. Thank you both very luch indeed. My thanks to Caroline

Spelman and Richard Burden. Coming up later this week, the man

responsible for health care across a great swathe of our area will be in

the hot seat. Neil Carr, Ch`irman of the South Staffordshire and

Shropshire NHS Trust, will be joining Jim Hawkins on BBC Radio

Shropshire. That's on Thursday morning from ten o'clock. I'm sure

there will be plenty to talk about on BBC Shropshire. This, though is

where we rejoin Andrew Neil. industrial action is a sign of

failure marked success. -- not success. Andrew, back to you.

Has George Osborne got a rabbit in his Budget hat? Will the Chancellor

find a way to help the squeezed middle? And how do Labour respond?

All questions for The Week Ahead. And joining Helen, Janan and Nick to

discuss the budget is the general secretary of the Trades Union

Congress Frances O'Grady. Welcome back to the programme. I know the

TUC has a submission, but if you could pick one thing that you wanted

the Chancellor to do above all, what would it be? We want a budget for

working people, which means we have to crack the long-term problem of

investment in the British economy. Certainly I would like the

Chancellor to merit that title they want of the new workers party, and

take action on living standards but if they're going to do that it's got

to be about unlocking investment. In the period where the economy has

been flat-lining there has been little business investment, but

there are signs towards the end of last year that it is beginning to

pick up. But a long way to go. The problem is we have key industries

like construction and manufacturing that are still smaller than they

were before the recession. The government itself, of course, has

slashed its own capital investment budget by half. There is plenty of

good and important work that needs to be done from building houses to

improving the transport system, to improving our schools. And the

government really needs to pick up that shovel and start investing in

our economy to get the decent jobs we need, the pay increases we need,

and that in itself will help stimulate demand. It was Alistair

Darling who cut in 2011, and it s interesting that Ed Balls in his

plans for the next parliament would run a current budget surplus by the

end of the parliament as opposed to George Osborne who would have an

overall budget surplus. That gives Ed Balls or -- more wriggle room to

do what you talk about, but he is reticent to talk about it. He does

not want to say that he has an opportunity to spend on investment

because he fears if he says it he will be attacked by the

Conservatives for being irresponsible. Why is business doing

this? The recession was deeper than any since the war and the recovery

was slower than almost any since the war. The lag, the time it takes to

get over that is longer than anyone expected. I read the same evidence

as you towards the end of last year pointing to money being released,

and it depends what it is released on, whether it is capital investment

or bringing in people on higher wages. The one surprise in the

downturn is how well the employment figures have done, but they have not

invested in new capacity and they are sitting on a lot of dosh. I

looked at one set of figures that said if you took the biggest company

in Britain, they have about 715 billion pounds in corporate treasury

-- the biggest companies. I think it's reduced a little but they are

sitting on a mountain in dash of skills. Yes, but they're not

investing in skills, wages, or sustainable jobs. The new jobs we

have seen created since 2010, the vast majority of them have been in

low paid industries, and they are often zero hours, or insecure, or

part-time. So it's not delivering a recovery for ordinary working

people. Government ministers, as you know when you lobby them, they are

anxious to make out that they know the job is not done and the recovery

has just begun, but the one bit they are privately proud of, although

they can't explain it, is how many private-sector jobs have been

created. A lot of unions have done sensible deals with employers to

protect jobs through this period, but it's not sustainable. The

average worker in Britain today is now ?2000 a year worse off in real

terms than they were. On a pay against price comparison? It doesn't

take into account tax cuts. The raising of the personal allowance is

far outweighed by the raising VAT. Does the raising of the threshold

which the Lib Dems are proud of and the Tories are trying to trade

credit for, does it matter to your members? -- take credit for. It

matters that it is eclipsed by the cuts in benefits and know what is

conned any more. We're going to hear a lot about the raising of the

allowance, but as long as the real value of work, tax credits, things

like that, people won't feel it in their pocket, and they will find it

harder and harder to look after their family. When you look at the

other things that could take over from consumer spending which has

driven the recovery, held by house price rising in the south, it is

exports and business investment and you look at the state of the

Eurozone and the emerging markets which are now in trouble, and the

winter seems to have derailed the US recovery. It won't be exports.

Indeed, the Obie Eich does not think that will contribute to growth until

2015 -- OBI. So the figures we should be looking at our business

investment. And also the deficit. The deficit is 111 billion, and that

is a problem, because we are not at the end of the cutting process,

there are huge cuts to be made. I understand we are only a third of

the way through. That will definitely affect business

confidence. It is clear that the strategy has failed. Borrowing has

gone up and it's not delivered improved living standards and better

quality jobs, so cutting out of the recession is not going to work. The

structural budget deficit was going to be eliminated three weeks today

under the original plan. They missed target after target. Every economist

has their own definition of that. I think Mark Carney is right when he

says that fundamentally the economy is unbalanced and it is not

sustainable, growth is not sustainable. But if it clicked on,

it would be more balanced. It is not just north and south and

manufacturing a way out with services, but it is also between the

rich and everybody else. What do you make of the fact that there will

effectively be another freezing public sector pay, or at least no

more than 1%? Not even that for nurses and health workers. But they

will get 3% progression pay. 70 of nurses will not get any pay rise at

all. They get no progression pay at all. I think this is smack in the

mouth. Smack in the mouth to dedicated health care workers who

will feel very, very discontented about the decision. Danny

Alexander, I saw him appealing to health workers do not move to strike

ballots and said they should talk to their department. But about what? Is

that real pay cut has been imposed, what are workers left with? So do

you expect as a result of yet more tough controls on public sector pay

that unrest is inevitable? I know some unions will be consulting with

their members, but ultimately it's always members who decide what to

do. It does seem to me insulting not to at least be honest and say that

we are cutting real pay of nurses, health care workers, on the back of

a ?3 billion reorganisation of the NHS that nobody wanted and nobody

voted for. Their long-term changes taking place here that almost talks

about -- there are long-term changes. It is how lower percentage

wages have become of GDP on how big the percentage of profits is. It

seems to me there is a strong case for some kind of realignment there.

The biggest event of my life, in this world, is the entry of a couple

of billion more people into the labour supply. At the end of the

Cold War, India and China plugged into the global economy. If there is

a greater supply of that factor of production, logically you conclude

that wages will fall or stagnate and that has been the story in this

country and America and large parts of Western Europe in the last

generation. What is not possible is for governments to do much about

it. They can ameliorate it at the margins, but the idea that the

government controls living standards, which has become popular

over the last six months, and the Labour Party have in establishing

that, and I don't think it's true. George Osborne's options are

astonishingly limited compared to public expectations. If wages have

reached a modern record low as percentage of GDP, who is going to

champion the wage earner? We have lost Bob Crow, Tony Benn passed

away, so who is the champion? The trade union movement is the champion

of ordinary workers. We need those larger-than-life figures that we

will mess. Have you got them yet? We have a generation of workers coming

through. One thing about the loss of Bob Crow is that the whole union

movement has responded strongly to that, and we want to say that we are

strong and united and here to stand up for working people and we will

fight as hard as Bob Crow did. Whoever replaces Bob Crow or Tony

Benn, we can be sure they will not come from Eton because they all have

jobs in the government. I want to put up on the screen what even

Michael Gove was saying about this coterie of Old Etonian 's.

He's right, is he not? He's absolutely right. We have the idea

of the manifesto being written by five people from Eton and one from

Saint Pauls. A remarkable example of social mobility that George Osborne,

who had the disadvantage of going to Saint Pauls has made it into that

inner circle. Here is the question, what is Michael Gove up to? If you

saw the response from George Osborne, there was no slap down and

they know this is an area they are weak on an David Cameron will not

comment on it. If this had been a Labour shadow minister making a

similarly disloyal statement, they might have been shot at dawn. But

there is a real tolerance from Michael Gove to go freelance which

comes from George Osborne. It's about highlighting educational

reforms that he wants to turn every school in to eat and so it won't

happen in the future. But it's also pointing out who did not go to Eton

school and who would be the best candidate to replace David Cameron

as leader, George Osborne, and who did go to Eton school, Boris

Johnson. Michael Gove is on manoeuvres to destroy Boris

Johnson's chances of being leader. It's a good job they don't have an

election to worry about. Hold on. I think they are out of touch with

businesses as well as working people. You ask about who is talking

about wage earners. Businesses are. They are worried that unless living

standards rise again there will be nobody there to buy anything. We are

running out of time, but the TUC, are enthusiastic about HS2? We

supported. We think it's the kind of infrastructure project that we need

to invest in long-term. He could, if we get it right, rebalance north and

south and create good jobs along the way -- it could. Thank you very much

tool. I have to say that every week -- thank you very much to you all.

That's all for today. I'll be back next Sunday at 11am, and Jo Coburn

will be on BBC Two tomorrow at midday with the Daily Politics.

Remember if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.