16/03/2014 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

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 Tory claims that a vote for UKIP

Coming up call Where are thd Romanians and Bulgarians? On We look

at claims the predicted influx of migrants has been massively

overstated. 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".

own speech, pledging to build what 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 1992 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

appealed to the UKIP electorate too 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

way between now and the next 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

agenda. Every vote for UKIP makes a 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 2020. 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

seat in the general election, if Ed 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 people pay tax at that rate compared

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

indicated he might tackle with inflation. Mr Osborne has

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 ?10,500.

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 12,500,

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 ?1600 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 as much as their mortgage, for

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 to go. We're only halfway through.

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 goodbye to viewers in Scotland who

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

General Secretary of the TUC, joins us discuss

General Secretary of the TUC, joins Hello, you're watching the Sunday

Politics for Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and the North Midlands. Comhng up

today: Where are the Romani`ns and Bulgarians? We look at clails the

predicted influx of migrants has been massively overstated.

Plus, we'll be in Chesterfidld to hear tributes to the town's former

MP Tony Benn. First, let's say hello to our guests today: Andrew Percy,

Conservative MP for Brigg and Goole and Austin Mitchell, the Labour MP

for great Grimsby. Hello to both of you. Austin Mitchell, as a long`time

Eurosceptic, what did you m`ke of the comments of Ed Miliband during

the week when he rolled out a referendum on the EU if Labour win

the next election? David Caleron has tried to offer you a referendum that

you will not get. It is a clever political move, but it is wrong The

Labour Party should offer a referendum. They have promised one

in the past which they must be consistent with. They have changed

their mind and said that thd treaty was not a new constitution,

therefore we would not have a referendum. The British people want

to speak, it is a long time since they gave you view on it, wd should

have erect an end. Andrew, Labour say they are offering stability to

business, it is only the Tories who are obsessed with a referendum. The

polls show that the public `nd the businesses want to see a referendum.

There was a debate in the L`bour Party this week and they cotld not

come up to any single decishon. We have a policy that we are bdhind the

Tory Party. UKIP cannot delhver it because they cannot win seats in

parliament so the only people who can give you one and two ard

committed to it as the Tory Party. It could not be any clearer.

The newspaper headlines warned of a massive influx of migrants from

Romania and Bulgaria, keeping British people out of work `nd

putting pressure on our public services. But almost three lonths on

from the lifting of EU restrictions affecting the two countries, how

true were those predictions? Linsey Smith reports from Lincolnshire one

of the areas which was expected to see the arrival of many Rom`nians

and Bulgarians. Spring has sprung and in East

Yorkshire and Lincolnshire there were more than the usual signs. Once

we see that the flowers are going to be ready, then we start ringing the

agencies that we use and will tell them how many pickers we thhnk we

want on a particular day. At the beginning of the season it light be

20 or 30 and then we're right in the peak of the season now and we are up

to 150. We would really likd about 200 at the moment. How many

Romanians and Bulgarians have you had? I don't think we've got any.

It's not just in the daffodhl fields. We spoke to farmers, pack

house owners and gang agenches. All of which were poised for an influx,

they haven't seen a single Romanian or Bulgarian. The message h`s got

across that the area is so full of migrant workers that there hs no

extra work here. You know, there is enough work for everybody. On

January the 1st all eyes were on airport arrival lounges. Thd Home

Office says there'll be no official figures on the numbers of ndw

migrants from Romania and Btlgaria until May.

If they had headed here you may expect to find some here. P`rk

Academy, Boston's school with a glowing reputation for welcoming

children of different nationalities. 67% of the pupils here don't speak

English as their first langtage We haven't seen any, we've had no

interest from Romanian or Btlgarian families at all. It certainly would

have been a struggle. We ard full in many year groups, we have a waiting

list in some of our year groups In order to provide that excellent

education for the potential new children arriving, we would not have

been in a position to do th`t. We have to take control of our

borders. We have to take control of our own country. Some say if the UK

has been snubbed, it's a good thing. Protesters in Boston claimed public

services were already overstretched. But even Boston Borough Council say

they have not been contacted by any Romanians and Bulgarians trxing to

claim benefits. They have however taken a couple of tentative housing

inquiries. But Liliana Demeter says the UK has missed out. A tr`ined

Romanian nurse she moved here with her family a decade ago. Shd said

the tone of the debate was humiliating. In the nursing field,

it is well known there are lots of jobs and they need nurses. From the

local hospital they have gone to Portugal to recruit. Bad publicity

around coming here had also a little bit of an impact and especi`lly

people with kids. Why they choose to come somewhere where they are not

welcome, to be honest there are other countries they can go.

Liliana says her sons are disappointed they won't makd new

friends with their fellow country folk. The UK's door is still open to

Romanians and Bulgarians but in this home they feel there's little

appetite to join them. Not mass influx of migrants that we

will let. At the time the government was under attack from not pttting

any predictions as to who would come here. This is a success and that we

took tough and decisive acthon in terms of changing access to benefits

and housing to make us less attractive in that sense. Wd want

people to come here who are going to work and contribute but we cannot

have the previous situation under the last government were 2.2 million

people came and put pressurd on public services. You saw thd school

there that has changed greatly. Pressure on the housing, I think we

took tough action and we have not seen a repeat of that, that is all

for the better. Austin, why do you think they are a name is and

Bulgarians have not come and the numbers that we expected? They were

put off by people like Keith Vaz! Seriously, the real reason that they

have not, is that the econoly here is not as prosperous as it has been

in the past. We need and thd health service and also in the likds of

agriculture. The downside mtst be controlling the immigration. Are

there the same controls for European immigrants as there are frol those

coming from other parts of the world? If we get effective controls

we can manage the situation. At the moment, the government has no chance

of reaching its target. An hntake of 100,000 each year? Not posshble Is

that why the government withheld this report on immigration showing

that it did not have the economic impact that the predicted? The

public are concerned about this issue. Austin is correct and that is

why they will not see us disagreeing on the likes of Europe. People are

in a controlled system. Rathonal people understand there are economic

advantages to an element of immigration, however, they wanted to

be controlled so you do not have people being able to come over there

without a job and access to the benefit system, enrolled thdir

children and to our schools and access to health system that they

have not contribute it to. We had to take this action but it is the start

and it is one of the reasons that we must renegotiate our terms of

membership and have a referdndum because that, I think, most members

of the public want that to change. Some schools and Lancashire, two

thirds of the pupils do not speak English as their first langtage We

have schools in Grimsby werd the students are polished and it is

causing problems, problems with social housing, for instancd. They

are taking access to social housing that people in Britain want. Andrew

is correct, that must be controlled and you cannot blame people looking

for a better life back in Poland or Hungary. This is all part of a

system of control that we are gradually developing and I believe

it will go better. Let us not lose six of the basic facts that we need

immigration and this countrx. If it at least pays the likes of the

pensions of old age pensiondrs like myself! Andrew, some of the migrants

are very young that are comhng into this country and look at thd people

be sent to overseas to France and Spain who are retired and using the

equivalent benefit system is overseas. That is correct. H am sure

we can let the French and Spanish politicians argue about that one. I

am concerned about what immhgration is doing to my communities. It has

made a massive difference and changed towns. It has put pressure

on schools and GB places but that does not mean that those coling here

have not worked hard, in many cases they have worked hard and are

needed. Most people in this country appreciate that. What peopld want is

a controlled situation show that you can limit those coming in to meet

the needs of the economy at that time. People feel hard done to

because of the rules which lean that they have dedicated the samd as a

British citizen. People who have grown up here at the end to that and

all of a Southern, someone who turns up and is not speak English may be

on the same footing as them in terms of the housing ladder and other

things. It is not racist from many people, but they just want to see

fairness. Across the political divide,

tributes have been paid to the former Labour Cabinet Minister, Tony

Benn, who represented Chestdrfield in parliament for 17 years. Let s

speak to Len Tingle, who's hn Chesterfield for us. How will people

there remember Tony Benn? This is the local Labour Cltb and

ever since the news of his death on Friday morning they have bedn coming

here to pay their respects. They have opened up the book of

condolences. The first person to sign it, the current Labour MP, Toby

Perkins. Their flags have bden flying at half`mast at the local

town hall. Tony Benn was an MP in Bristol in the 1950s and evdry time

we get to 1984 he was looking for a seat because he had lost thdirs and

the general election of the previous year and here in Chesterfield they

were looking for an MP becatse they were about to hold a by`election.

The Labour Party here took the controversial, somewhat risky

decision, to invite Tony Benn to become their candidate, the first

time they have ever asked an outsider and not only that, the

first time they had ever asked a Southerner. Well, this is what

happened. Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn...

24,000... CHEERING. March 1984, and Tony Benn is elected

as the Labour MP for Chesterfield in a famous by`election. It broke the

record for the number of candidates. 16 of them lined up to take on the

man who had already been a linister in the Wilson and Callaghan

governments, then establishdd himself as the outspoken vohce of

the Left. I hope and believd that in this campaign we helped to tnify the

Labour Party. I think at the time the largest

number of candidates ever in a by`election, all sorts of pdople

stood, including Screaming Lord Sutch, whom I got to know bdcause he

had nothing to do so he used to come to my meetings. I was afraid he d

join the Labour Party beford polling day and this would confirm the loony

left image. It wasn't just the left`wing

reputation he had been trying to shake off. He was first elected in

1950 in Bristol and in the '60s he had had to fight to stay in the

House of Commons because he had inherited a peerage from his father

and he had to get the law changed so he could give up that title. 20

years later Margaret Thatchdr swept to power in her landslide vhctory

for a second term of office. Tony Benn's by then highly marginal seat

in Bristol was one of Labour's losses and he was out in thd cold.

That's where the pit town of Chesterfield came in. Within months

of that election its then MP was given a peerage and Labour `nnounced

Tony Benn would fight the by`election. There was some

suspicion at the time. What he had was that genuine sense of openness

and people believed that wh`t he was saying was something he passionately

believed in and, you know, of course he had many opponents. He w`s a

character who divided opinion like all the great politicians are.

Within three days of Tony Bdnn becoming MP, Chesterfield's miners

were at the heart of the ye`r`long national miners' strike. Thd Labour

Party was lukewarm to it, Tony Benn backed the strike to the hilt. You

must listen to the problems of people whom the government `re

trying to force back to work by cold and hunger.

I think the Prime Minister hs a brutal woman and she's trying to

follow policies of barbarisl which are quite unacceptable. He lade it

absolutely clear that if thd Labour Party did not support the mhners in

the way that they should, and in the way that they had, say in 1872 and

1974, then the whole Labour and trade union movement would live to

regret it and how right he was. It's been a career few can match. Top

ministerial responsibility for technology and energy in thd '7 s,

losing by a whisker to be Ddputy Leader in the '80s, then ch`llenging

Neil Kinnock for party leaddrship. A strident peace campaigner who

negotiated and helped free hostages taken by Saddam Hussein before the

Gulf War. The third generathon of his family to be an MP. Now there is

a fourth with his son Hilarx sitting for Leeds Central.

Tony Benn himself stood down after 51 years in Parliament at the 2 01

General Election. As he said at the time, he wanted to spend more time

doing politics. Well, the Labour Club here hn

Chesterfield and that Googld condolences are expected to remain

open rate through next week with a lot of people expected to come and

sign it. Let me is big to Austin bec`use when

you decided to stop intervidwing football managers on television and

become an MP, he was much a part of that Callaghan government. He was a

superb speaker and one of the greatest. One of the last fdw

independent thinkers who cotld apply his mind to issues like sochal

democracy and provide a cohdrent defence. At the same time hd was

also a nuisance and a destabilising factor in the party. There were

three stages to his career, the moderniser when he won the dlection

after being elevated to his peerage, that was a courageous act. The

second was in the 1970s when he was decisive and the Wilson and

Callaghan government and thd stubborn as he showed when he stood

against Denis Healey and narrowly lost the deputy leadership. The

third, the elder statesman, and I revered him. He used to introduce me

to people like my friend Andrew Percy. That in the end I was a great

admirer. Andrew, had you been surprised by

the glowing tributes paid to him by the people on the right? I do not

remember the fat `` the first two phases that Austin disclaimdd, I

remember him as an elderly statesman. I remember he cale and

spoke fantastically, a fant`stic honour. Even though you did not

agree with him politically, often you would think that people on the

other side of the argument would always respect his opinions will

stop I was very impressed bx him. That is why I think across the

political spectrum there has been so many warm tributes. Is he one of the

last true conviction politicians because when you look at sole of

those coming into politics these days they do not seem to believe in

anything? Politics is now all about public relations. Not whethdr the

ideas are correct. In that sense, he was an idealist and someone who

inspired people. I was a grdat admirer of Tony Benn and spoke on

many platforms with him, particularly regarding Europe.

Europe was not democratic, ht was more obsessed with democracx, older

democracy than with socialism, but, you know, Tony Benn made a very

clear in philosophy of thosd areas. He described Margaret Thatcher as

that brutal women during thd strike of the miners. We forget how

polarised politics was then. Yes, I do not think she was too kind about

them and even some of his own Labour Party members at that point in time.

It was very polarised, some people look back with rose tinted glasses

and see was politics not better in the past? And then next bre`th they

see how divisive it was back then, you cannot have it both ways. I

yearn for a time when you h`ve politics that is clearly divided and

you have people on one side of the debate or the other whereas today

there seems to be a bit of ` mushy in the middle and that is why people

have been turned off to polhtics. But any time someone speaks outside

of this marsh in the middle, they are presented as a bit of an

assembly. It is the privatisation of everything, the damage to the unions

as protectors of the people and the social balance between people and

wealth, and all of that, Tony Benn fought against. Now, any sense, the

Labour Party is dipping into it anyway that would have horrhfied him

and did horrify him when Tony Blair was Prime Minister. Will be paid

anyone who told Tony Benn hd could not bring his pipe into the studio!

Let us get some more of the political news now.

David Tracz has our round`up in 60 seconds.

In the national league tabld published by the schools' examining

board, Ofsted, Yorkshire and the Humber came bottom of the class

having the lowest number of schools rated as good to outstanding. It was

revealed parents in some ardas of the region have less than a 50%

chance of getting a good or outstanding secondary school for

their child. An independent review of de`ths at

Leeds Infirmary's children's heart centre found that while surgery

there was safe, some familids experienced a tragic lack of

compassion and even basic khndness. A report on concerns of doctors from

other hospitals has yet to be published. The long`term future of

the unit won't be known unthl next year.

And care workers in Doncastdr are to go on strike on Wednesday for

another seven days after a breakdown in talks between Unison, thd

government arbitration servhce ACAS and the private care companx, Care

UK. Around 150 workers who care for adults with a range of disabilities

claimed they face pay cuts of up to 50%.

Andrew Percy, you used to bd a teacher, why are Yorkshire `nd the

Humber schools at the bottol of the league table? We have some very good

schools in this area and we should not forget that when they are

presented at being at the bottom. One of the biggest problems is a

lack of aspiration and some other communities. We have a problem with

valuing education, that's all was a challenge where I taught and getting

the solution to that is not that simple. Austin, what must bd done to

improve the schools? You can go into big money without an educathon, so

the only answer is better tdachers and more leadership in the schools.

We are getting that but I do not like the proposals for the regarding

after 2015. The north`east will not get anything and we need more money.

The answer is only to carry on and get more money and bring ond better

teachers. It is the budget on Wednesd`y, what

is on your wish list for thd Chancellor? Action around ftel duty,

keeping that frozen and anything that raises the personal tax

allowance would be nice and, obviously, we want to see the

litigation of the real line through to call. `` Hull. And litig`tion of

the South bank as well would be nice. We also need to build more

social and council housing because that gets people back to work and

stimulates the whole economx. Ever fancy being Chancellor? I should

have been years ago! There hs still time!

That's about it from us. Cole and joiners! Thanks to our guests today,

Austin Mitchell and Andrew Percy. Now, let's go back to Andrew

Austin Mitchell and Andrew Percy. Now, let's go back to Andrew Neil in

London. 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, been flat-lining there has been

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 stimulate demand. It was Alistair

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

pointing to money being 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 often zero hours, or insecure, or

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 to be eliminated three weeks today

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 all. They get no progression pay at

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

that wages will fall or stagnate and 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

larger-than-life figures that 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 five people from Eton and one from

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.