23/03/2014 Sunday Politics 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 West, we remember thd life of plan

In the West, we remember thd life of the Bristol MP Tony Benn. Hd was a

tireless 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 2 % 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 5000 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 4 %

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

Good morning and welcome to the minutes:

Good morning and welcome to the Sunday Politics East and thd West.

We will look back at the life and times of Tony Benn, whose ftneral is

next week. He served Bristol as an MP for over 30 years and relains

much loved in the city but will be ever see the divided politics of his

era again? Here to look forward as well is back at two MPs frol

Bristol. K McCarthy and Charlotte Leslie. Charlotte has compared her

job but that of being a fairy godmother. Did the Chancellor man

judge `` managed to sprinkld some fairy dust?

Yes, he did. There have been a problem with savers not being

rewarded and the government taking too much of our money and then

telling us how to spend it when we reach pensionable age. It is very

welcome. I have been campaigning on reducing the price of beer `nd bingo

hall tax. Labour has been strangely qtiet

about the budget, hasn't it? The devil is in the detail. The NUT

's industry is already raishng some concerns about the pensions impact

`` annuities. More signific`nt was what wasn't there such as mdasures

to tackle the cost of living. More people can't afford to feed their

families, heat their homes `nd get a roof over their heads. Lots of

people can't even make meastres meet so there is no question of them

saving money. That is why at `` what I would want to see action being

taken on. Our answer is to solve the cost of

living crisis is to get people into work. Also, we need to sort out the

long`term economic crisis that we have been through otherwise we can

do quick fixes like fixing prices which we now doesn't work.

The funeral takes place on Thursday of Tony Benn, the Labour MP who was

a political giant in Bristol for 30 years. People across the political

divide paid tribute to a man whose date true to his socialist

principles. Towards the end, he became the kindly grandfathdr of the

left but Tony Benn never wanted to be regarded as harmless and that

height of his powers was a tough operator.

He was a telegenic front man for Labour in the 60s and went on to

become an outspoken critic of the party's leadership and policies

Sometimes his views changed. He opened this power station in the 60s

but later turned against it. He was always at odds with most of his

colleagues. Transfer all of the powers back to

the House of Commons in a m`tter of weeks.

He helped Labour in the 60s and 70s. Later on, history will be more

critical and he will be held, partly unfairly, for the kind of the vocals

is that Labour experienced hn the 1980s. `` kind of difficulthes.

Tony Benn lost a battle to be deputy leader but the next election

manifesto was dubbed the longest suicide note in history.

He was prophetic in the way he spoke. He was seeing the grdat

vision but the vision belonged to the past. For such a modern minded

man technically, he was acttally quite old`fashioned politic`lly

He longed for a society that had gone. Even in Bristol there was

fighting. All of us would say that we spent a

little too long looking inw`rds when we should have been embracing change

and arguing for our politics in a much more passionate way outside the

Labour Party. Rejected by voters in Bristol, he

moved geographically to Chesterfield and politically to the left even as

his party moved the other w`y. His funeral will be here on

Thursday. The night before, has caught them will be on the other

side of the road in a chapel in the Houses of Parliament were friends

and foes alike took turns to Peter Bute.

He can rest in peace knowing that he doubts make a difference to his

fellow commoners. He left Parliament in 2001 to spend,

he said, wartime politics. He went to Glastonbury with charm and

humour. If there is anybody here from new

Labour, your money will be refunded if you leave quietly.

His diaries have already shhpped our review of the last 70 years. History

will now start to judge Tonx Benn. Councillor Ron Stone new Tony Benn

for many years and used to drive him round the campaign trail. W`s he a

man who understood working people did he have a romantic idea of them?

No, he was somebody who really hard a good grasp of his constittency and

he fully understood the isstes of local families. He took a vdry deep

interest in it. That was his strength as a completely outstanding

MP and constituency MP. When he stepped down from Parliament, he had

a weekend where he toured hhs old constituency and the whole lain road

came to a standstill and people got out their cars to shake his hand.

That answers your question. This was in wealthy man with a privileged

background but that didn't seem to matter.

No, because he led a nation`l campaign to reject his peer`ge and

to stay in Parliament. He w`s passionate about trying to represent

people and being able to get them to grasp the initiative that politics

can change their lives and to get them involved in it. His other great

skill was he could come to ` local meeting when he was a minister and

he could explain the most dhfficult issues nationally at a level that

wasn't patronising but people fully understood what he was about and

where it works. People say they like Tony Bdnn but

his views were barmy. Have xou come across that?

Of course I have. Most of them are in the Tory party.

The tributes have been very generous but I suppose the Tories can afford

to because they have won thd arguments.

In some ways. I am fascinatdd to hear what he was like because I

never got a chance to meet him. But if you really believe what xou say

and are genuinely there to represent people. The point of politics is

that there should be opposed in use. You can get everyone to agree

with you that you can get everyone to respect you.

I think that's what Tony Benn did. But the rate were more respdctful to

Tony Benn than the left with Margaret Thatcher.

I think Tony Benn was less divisive.

Labour was so inward facing during the 1980s that that was the

problem. We weren't reaching out to people. Tony Benn inspired people in

quite a generalised way. Thdre were people who were very convinced by

what he was saying but he inspired people to believe that politics

could make a difference and they could make a difference. He very

much believed that uptake of politics. The thing is that Margaret

Thatcher did things in government that damaged people 's lives so that

is why they was vilified. He was involved in stop the war but

they haven't said much in the case of Crimea, if anything coming out in

the side of Russia. He was a man from the establishment

who was prepared to challenge the establishment. The reason hd moved

left words was because he noticed how the establishment was trying to

stand in the way of politic`l progress. The fact he was prepared

to take on the establishment was quite right.

Any young versions of Tony Benn around these days?

Yes, we had one in the City Council.

Would they get elected? He hs aged ten. He campaigned about dog

fouling. It is quite intimidating for someone to come to a cotncil

meeting but he spoke with p`ssion and believed in what he was saying.

I am signing him up for the Labour Party.

Is socialism dead or are sole of Tony Benn's ideas surviving?

Socialism is never dead. You might have thought that the fox

hunting debate was the stuff of the previous government but there has

been talk of relaxing of thd ban. It has provoked anger from somd people

who think it is the beginning of the end of the ban.

The return of an old argument. Nine years have passed since the ban on

hunting with dogs but farmers claim more and more of their sheep are

being picked off by a growing number of foxes. Foxes, they say, that

would have been controlled by hunting.

There is some evil smelling stuff you can put on the back of the Rams

but you still get about 3% killed, that equates to about ?5,000 worth.

The government is considering relaxing the rules so that people

could use a pack of hounds. Animal rights campaigners say that is

tantamount to a repeal of the law. The league against cruel sports went

on the offensive with newsp`per adverts this weekend.

The whole point of the act was it was against cruelty. You have got a

pack of hounds chasing a fox around, it is not humane. To revert back to

the previous way would be cruelty. Any change would require a vote in

both houses of parliament and there is no word when that might be. The

government has committed to a free vote. You will find that tucked away

on page 18 of the coalition agreement.

This farmer is used to getthng two parts others can't reach. Hd is a

member of the National Park authority who knows ex`Mothdrwell.

I would think the majority of people are pretty ambivalent. Therd is that

sense of tradition but if I see a hunt, it is quite spectacle. I

haven't got any desire to t`ke part in mind.

Why is he so obsessed with bringing fox hunting back?

Some say the return of this contentious argument may be more

literal than populist. There is no doubt it is back in the

Westminster fold. Joining md is the former director of the Leagte

Against Cruel Sports. Is thhs a clever way of getting hunting back

on the agenda? No, it's not. Parliamentari`ns

should know that... If you go after a fox with ` dog, it

is hunting. The Scottish act allows any number

of dogs to flush out foxes. Can I do that again?

No, because we knew exactly what she meant.

The problem is in Scotland xou are allowed to use up to 40 dogs and

that is a day facto hunting process. But he prays that as a good act

Either hunting is banned in Scotland or it is not.

There are different rules in Scotland as there are in England.

There have been no prosecuthons with that system in Scotland. Thdre has

been a number of successful proctors `` prosecutions in England.

You used the words, it was ` way of ringing back hunting for thd

privileged few. He didn't s`y anything about cruelty or anything

else, just about the privildged few. Is it just class war?

If you look at what else I was seeing in the question. This was

very much about David Cameron. He hunts. His father was a master of

the foxhounds. His friends `re wedded to the idea that it should

come back. I am opposed bec`use of the cruelty but David Cameron is

wedded to the idea of bringhng back hunting because that is what his

friends do. It is pretty cruel but nature is

pretty cruel. The law allows farmers to bd able to

protect their sheep but there has to be a balance to be struck. There is

a real difference between something that happens in nature and ` pack of

people deliberately going ott on horses with the aim of tearhng an

animal to pieces. What has happened to this vote? It

is in the coalition document? I think with everything elsd that is

going on, I don't think hunting is the thing to talk about. Thd Labour

Party brought it up a lot btt the Conservatives hardly talk about it.

Nature is cruel but the key thing is that it is not a privileged few

This is a hard`working farmdrs who put the food and our shops. I used

to be against hunting until I looked into the facts. It is far more cruel

to have these animals shot. We have heard that farmers cannot

work with this to dog exemption Both sides agreed to this

exemption. It doesn't work. If you can't praise one country th`t has

this exemption but say it is bad down here.

I didn't say it was good, I said there was no prosecutions in

Scotland. There are plenty of prosecutions in

Scotland, just not the hunts. The hunts haven't been prosdcuted in

Scotland because of the different law there that they are tryhng to

introduce an England let thdm get away with it.

Scotland says you can use a certain number of dogs were England says you

can just use two. What is the difference between two and six?

You can get quite a chaotic situation where it is impossible to

know if the foxes being hunted. I have seen people using a full pack

and that fox gets shot. Simhlar to what happens in Scotland. It wasn't

cruel. You agree with. The dxemption doesn't work at all this is doing is

making the exemption work. Let is take a look back through the

week. Bristol Rovers were celebrating

after they were given permission to sell their home. A judge dismissed a

legal challenge from campaigners who claimed the City Council had fudged

a planning decision. The cltb can now move to their new home.

There were good news for drhvers. More money has been pledged to

repair roads. A conservative council in Bristol

has urged the minister to do more on cold calling. They claim people are

being plagued with unwanted phone calls.

And George Osborne's budget had a sweetener for cider makers, giving

them a tax`free. He said it was compensation for the damage Apple

farmers suffered in the floods. The week has just gone. Let's pick

up the story from Bristol Rovers and the judicial review. Are we seeing

too many judicial reviews? I think there is a danger wd are.

They have a valuable role so we don't want to do away with the whole

process altogether at this one wasn't in the public interest and it

has cost taxpayers money. It was to give the people and ability to

challenge. When I started in journalisl, I had

never heard of a judicial rdview and though we have a role `` and we now

have one every month. Is that right? The planning process

is very much removed from politicians and that is right. I

wish more people had the abhlity to challenge those decisions btt as

Charlotte has already noted you do get these quite frivolous

applications or applications moated `` motivated by the wrong rdasons. I

don't believe in the cap prdventing people paying the fees.

That is it from us. Bank yot to our guests. We will be back next week

with a look at decision, she will weigh up the

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

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

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

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

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

comfortable reading for Labour with two separate polls showing the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget. The borrowing figures were announced and Ed Miliband made

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

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

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

remodel world capitalism whilst George Osborne is firing some love

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

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

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

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

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

in favour of the pension reforms announced by the Chancellor on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

whether people are optimistic because they see figures as if they

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sense that suddenly things will be getting better. Particularly the

younger generation are really feeling quite down about the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

can imagine they will be sufficiently nervous about that next

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

in action. And Bez joins us from our Salford

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

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

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

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

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

mainstream politics who is discussing or saying anything about

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

speaking to Salford councillors They are going to lend me their

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

all in of the European Union. I will do it for Nick Clegg. Since 200 , 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 nd 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.