:00:37. > :00:38.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:39. > :00:41.Has the Government backed away from plans for a Commons vote on
:00:42. > :00:47.That's the view of several newspapers this morning.
:00:48. > :00:53.The first right-to-buy council house was sold back in 1979.
:00:54. > :00:56.As MPs pass plans for a new wave of sales,
:00:57. > :01:04.we'll be asking whether it will mean more, or fewer affordable homes.
:01:05. > :01:06.The Chancellor is in Berlin, where he's discussing EU
:01:07. > :01:08.renegotiation with his German counterpart and calling for a new
:01:09. > :01:27.And with bonfire night just around the corner, we'll be talking
:01:28. > :01:38.about the 410-year-old plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament.
:01:39. > :01:41.All that in the next hour and with us for the whole
:01:42. > :01:44.of the programme, it's the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.
:01:45. > :01:50.As a child he said he wanted to be Prime Minister by the age of 70.
:01:51. > :01:53.Well, we've checked this morning and at the moment
:01:54. > :02:02.the bookies are only offering odds of 100-1 that he'll ever get to
:02:03. > :02:04.Number Ten, but there's still plenty of time and an
:02:05. > :02:06.appearance on this programme can only help.
:02:07. > :02:11.First today, let's talk about George Osborne's trip to Berlin,
:02:12. > :02:13.where he's been in talks with the German Finance Minister.
:02:14. > :02:16.The visit has been billed as part of the Government's effort to
:02:17. > :02:18.renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU
:02:19. > :02:20.and he's been calling for safeguards to protect British businesses
:02:21. > :02:23.Let's have a look at his speech to German business
:02:24. > :02:37.Today we both have a responsibility also to show economic leadership in
:02:38. > :02:43.Europe. For there is a simple truth. We are Europe's engine for jobs and
:02:44. > :02:50.for growth. Since the economic crash seven years ago, our two economies
:02:51. > :02:51.each expanded by the same 13%. That was George Osborne.
:02:52. > :03:06.. Integrated eurozone, surrounded by a
:03:07. > :03:11.looser group of countries using their own currency. Is that going to
:03:12. > :03:15.be enough to satisfy for people to stay in the EU? We need a more
:03:16. > :03:17.fundamental change in our relationship, a significantly looser
:03:18. > :03:22.relationship with the European Union and not so much being in a different
:03:23. > :03:26.tier as being an associate member who has free trade, but is not tied
:03:27. > :03:30.up to the concept of political union and the steps towards that. Right,
:03:31. > :03:35.so at the moment, you would vote to withdraw? At the moment, I would
:03:36. > :03:42.vote to withdraw. Going on to what George Osborne is talking about with
:03:43. > :03:48.his German counterpart, the treaty changes would be the recognition
:03:49. > :03:52.that countries should have more than one currency? That's sensible and
:03:53. > :03:55.actually the single market is not meant to allow people to
:03:56. > :03:58.discriminate on the basis of currency already. So that's already
:03:59. > :04:03.in the treaties, that's just changing the wording of something
:04:04. > :04:06.that's already there. Amongst your colleagues, are they expecting
:04:07. > :04:12.something substantial from the negotiations? The Government has
:04:13. > :04:17.amazingly cleverly lowered expectations to a point where if
:04:18. > :04:21.they get anything at all, people will be pleasantly surprised. The
:04:22. > :04:26.question is whether what they do get in the end is sufficient. Currently
:04:27. > :04:30.expectations are on the floor. What about the areas of freedom of
:04:31. > :04:35.movement and immigration? For you, is that a must in terms of getting
:04:36. > :04:40.some sort of deal for Britain to control or control further its own
:04:41. > :04:47.borders? It is absolutely essential. Partly because it is Titanic and it
:04:48. > :04:50.is one of the four freedoms and if the member state -- if the EU said
:04:51. > :04:55.that a member state could pull out of that, it is not just that the EU
:04:56. > :05:00.is demanding different You don't think things. That will happen?
:05:01. > :05:04.180,000 economic migrants came from the EU last year. If we don't get
:05:05. > :05:07.control of our borders, we will carry on having hundreds of
:05:08. > :05:11.thousands coming in. The Prime Minister committed to getting the
:05:12. > :05:15.number down to tens of thousands. He is a man who delivers on his
:05:16. > :05:20.promise. He didn't in the last Parliament? He wants to try to
:05:21. > :05:23.continue try to. He wants to sort out the free movement problem.
:05:24. > :05:26.Now it's time for our daily quiz. The question for today is:
:05:27. > :05:28.What item has Downing Street reportedly "photo-shopped" on to
:05:29. > :05:41.At the end of the show Jacob will gives the correct answer.
:05:42. > :05:44.The Times and The Guardian both report this morning that
:05:45. > :05:47.the Government has backed away from asking MPs to vote on extending
:05:48. > :05:51.Prompted, they say by a combination of a lack of
:05:52. > :05:54.parliamentary support and Russia's intervention in the conflict.
:05:55. > :06:00.Downing Street has vehemently denied the story,
:06:01. > :06:03.saying the Prime Minister's position has always been that he will only
:06:04. > :06:06.take the matter to the Commons when he is certain he has a majority.
:06:07. > :06:10.Well, our political correspondent Vicki Young is on College Green
:06:11. > :06:21.Has the Government changed its position regarding come to go the
:06:22. > :06:26.House of Commons, asking for permission to take military action
:06:27. > :06:31.in Syria? Well, Downing Street absolutely insist not and maybe Jo
:06:32. > :06:33.we shouldn't get too hung up on the language of something being
:06:34. > :06:38.abandoned or shelved for good. You think what we can say is when the
:06:39. > :06:42.Tories were elected in May, there was real momentum building behind a
:06:43. > :06:44.vote in the House of Commons, David Cameron making it very clear
:06:45. > :06:50.publicly that was the way he wanted to go. They saw an inconsistency
:06:51. > :06:54.between the UK launching bombing raids on Isis over Iraq, but not
:06:55. > :06:58.over Syria and they wanted that to change, but the key thing they calls
:06:59. > :07:01.talked about was the word consensus, they had to try and get it through
:07:02. > :07:05.the House of Commons in a vote. Of course, he has a working majority,
:07:06. > :07:09.David Cameron, of about 12ment there are many, many Tories MPs, very,
:07:10. > :07:13.very resistant to this, very, very nervous about the idea of us getting
:07:14. > :07:16.involved in Syria and complicating the whole matter. So what they have
:07:17. > :07:20.been doing is speaking to Labour MPs over the last few months, talks have
:07:21. > :07:24.been going on until recently with those in the Labour Party, who felt
:07:25. > :07:28.that they might just be able to support the Conservatives on all of
:07:29. > :07:32.this. Of course, complicated by the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader
:07:33. > :07:36.would mean them defying their leader on this and what seems to have
:07:37. > :07:38.happened, there was real momentum behind the move and the momentum has
:07:39. > :07:41.gradually faded away. So if I behind the move and the momentum has
:07:42. > :07:45.to ask a minister when a vote might behind the move and the momentum has
:07:46. > :07:50.be held, what would behind the move and the momentum has
:07:51. > :07:54.The answer would be when it could be won. I was
:07:55. > :07:56.The answer would be when it could be they said,
:07:57. > :07:58.The answer would be when it could be vote." It happened
:07:59. > :08:01.The answer would be when it could be don't want David Cameron to be
:08:02. > :08:03.humiliated, they think it would have an effect on his
:08:04. > :08:06.humiliated, they think it would have world stage. The key thing was they
:08:07. > :08:11.had to get the numbers behind them. They simply don't think they are
:08:12. > :08:15.there. It has been complicated by there. It has been complicated by
:08:16. > :08:18.that made MPs on both sides more nervous about all of this. They
:08:19. > :08:20.that made MPs on both sides more think, many of them, that the UK
:08:21. > :08:22.needs to concentrate on the diplomatic side
:08:23. > :08:24.needs to concentrate on the trying to end the long civil war in
:08:25. > :08:32.Syria. Thank you. Let's stick with Syria now,
:08:33. > :08:35.as today also sees the publication of a report by the Commons Foreign
:08:36. > :08:38.Affairs Select Committee concluding there is no legal or military
:08:39. > :08:40.justification for extending air And the chairman of the committee,
:08:41. > :08:47.the Conservative MP Crispin Blunt, Welcome back to the Daily Politics.
:08:48. > :08:50.Your committee's report gives grist to the stay out of the war mill,
:08:51. > :08:54.doesn't it? I think you have overstated what the report actually
:08:55. > :08:59.said. The legal basis is questionable. The military
:09:00. > :09:03.effectiveness is questionable as well, but probably only marginal and
:09:04. > :09:09.it is not going to make a decisive impact on the conflict in Syria. It
:09:10. > :09:12.is not as stark... Some members of the Foreign Affairs Committee have
:09:13. > :09:16.gone further than you are now? It is not as stark as you're presenting
:09:17. > :09:21.it. At some point, the objective has got to be to defeat Isis in both
:09:22. > :09:25.Syria and Iraq. That is going to mean the Government coming forward
:09:26. > :09:30.and asking permission for military action by British forces in Syria as
:09:31. > :09:35.well as Iraq. We gave permission in Iraq and over the last year, that's
:09:36. > :09:38.helped stabilise the position in Iraq and hopefully we are in the
:09:39. > :09:44.process of stepping up the Iraqi army so it is capable of re-taking
:09:45. > :09:46.the ground in Iraq. The position of Syria is more complicated because of
:09:47. > :09:52.the presence of the different international actors there. And what
:09:53. > :09:56.is necessary is to get a coherent international strategy which will
:09:57. > :09:59.then produce a coherent military strategy that can defeat Isis in
:10:00. > :10:03.Syria. At some point the Government is going to come forward and ask us
:10:04. > :10:08.permission for British forces to be part of that coalition. Our view is
:10:09. > :10:11.that should be done when we have a coherent international plan and that
:10:12. > :10:16.has got to be the priority now. But are you also saying that the only
:10:17. > :10:21.way to defeat Isis is at some stage to have military action? Bombing
:10:22. > :10:26.against Isis in Syria, which Britain would be part of? The conventional
:10:27. > :10:30.defeat of Isis is going to require a conventional air and land operation
:10:31. > :10:35.to defeat Isis on the ground in both Syria and Iraq. Because there is no
:10:36. > :10:40.ground capability ready at the minute to take on Isis in Syria. The
:10:41. > :10:44.British military contribution is only going to be marginal. We don't
:10:45. > :10:48.have anymore aircraft to deploy to the regionment they are already
:10:49. > :10:52.fully engaged over Iraq so why draw us in as a combatan into Syria which
:10:53. > :10:58.is not going to have any military utility when the real focus has got
:10:59. > :11:02.to be on getting a diplomatic strategy going so the Iranians and
:11:03. > :11:05.the Saudis get agreed on the strategy. They are difficult to do
:11:06. > :11:13.and the Americans and the Russians have to be around the table too. The
:11:14. > :11:17.British Government should be knocking heads together to get an
:11:18. > :11:21.agreed strategy. By staying out of Syria for a prolonged period of time
:11:22. > :11:24.and I take your point about making sure other things are in place
:11:25. > :11:28.before there was any action, by Britain, doesn't it ensure that the
:11:29. > :11:32.diplomatic negotiations and any settlement in the region is skewed
:11:33. > :11:38.in favour of Russian and Iranian interests? Those interests are going
:11:39. > :11:42.to have to be recognised. It doesn't mean that they have got it
:11:43. > :11:47.compromise as well. There will be less pressure on them to do so and
:11:48. > :11:52.the momentum will be with them? The dynamics have changed and that's the
:11:53. > :11:56.reason we have talks in Vienna. The Iranians committed ground forces and
:11:57. > :12:00.if there is no transition out of the civil war, they need an exit route
:12:01. > :12:04.from this as much as anybody else. Do you accept the impact of your
:12:05. > :12:07.report could be to actually push any decision by the Government to bring
:12:08. > :12:14.that vote to the House of Commons way down the line? Well, I hope it
:12:15. > :12:17.pushes it down the line and... We need to defeat Isis. That's going to
:12:18. > :12:21.require a coherent international strategy. I want the Government to
:12:22. > :12:23.come forward to ask permission to use British military forces when
:12:24. > :12:27.there is a coherent international strategy. It is the absence of that
:12:28. > :12:30.that means we can't get on and take on Isis. Where do you stand? Should
:12:31. > :12:37.David Cameron come to the House of Commons in the near future asking
:12:38. > :12:40.for permission? Not immediately after the Foreign Affairs Select
:12:41. > :12:44.Committee has come out with the report saying this would not serve a
:12:45. > :12:50.purpose. This would not be respectful to the House of Commons.
:12:51. > :12:53.It is a highly respected committee. They are the experts in this field
:12:54. > :12:55.in the House of Commons and if that's the view they have come to,
:12:56. > :12:59.that will weigh heavily with members of Parliament. Right, it is a
:13:00. > :13:02.numbers game though? We heard from our correspondent too and even the
:13:03. > :13:06.Government has been fairly candid that they are not going to try for a
:13:07. > :13:10.second vote in the House of Commons unless they have the numbers to
:13:11. > :13:18.actually pass it. But it ought to be more than that. I agree with what
:13:19. > :13:22.Crispin is saying. It is not that we are going to bomb sairia because we
:13:23. > :13:26.don't like Assad. It has got to be we're going to do something that's
:13:27. > :13:29.beneficial and will resolve the problem or help resolve the problem
:13:30. > :13:32.and it should be done and brought to the House of Commons when the
:13:33. > :13:36.Government can make a case that it will be really effective. Not just
:13:37. > :13:39.because it thinks on a quiet Thursday afternoon enough people
:13:40. > :13:42.might be in their constituencies to get it through. Presumably the
:13:43. > :13:46.Government thinks it has got a case, it doesn't want to bring the vote to
:13:47. > :13:51.the House because it won't win if it can't persuade enough Labour and
:13:52. > :13:54.Tory MPs to vote in favour of it? Well if it has got a case, it hasn't
:13:55. > :13:57.been making it strongly. We have got the report now saying something
:13:58. > :14:02.different and the Government needs to counter that. I think, a lot of
:14:03. > :14:07.MPs will make up their minds on the basis of the arguments that they are
:14:08. > :14:11.not determined one way or another until they know what the balance of
:14:12. > :14:14.argument is I think this Foreign Affairs Select Committee report will
:14:15. > :14:18.be one of the most important Select Committee reports in this
:14:19. > :14:23.Parliament. Right. Has the Russian involvement completely changed the
:14:24. > :14:26.game here? In effect, yes because the Russians have now by their
:14:27. > :14:30.commitment have made it clear that the Assad regime is not going to be
:14:31. > :14:32.knocked over. It looked as though the Syrian Government was bleeding
:14:33. > :14:36.to death. It was taking a long time about it and a lot of people were
:14:37. > :14:40.getting killed in the process, but the Russian and Iranian commitment
:14:41. > :14:44.has meant that in effect, the Assad regime is going to survive, that's a
:14:45. > :14:47.reality on the ground and will continue to be so whilst the
:14:48. > :14:50.Russians commit. But that commitment will be endless because the
:14:51. > :14:53.opposition to the Assad regime is not going to go away and what's
:14:54. > :14:59.required is for that opposition and the regime to come to a deal about
:15:00. > :15:02.how the Syrian civil war is to end, what the transition arrangements are
:15:03. > :15:07.to be and then those people who are always going to reject a deal which
:15:08. > :15:10.will be the Islamist rejectionists, Isis and the Al-Qaeda associated
:15:11. > :15:16.forces, they will then become the enemy of everybody and then we can
:15:17. > :15:21.all then set-up a strategy to take rest control of those bits of Syria
:15:22. > :15:24.that they hold from them. Just briefly, did you interview and
:15:25. > :15:27.question ministers during this report? Yes, we took evidence from
:15:28. > :15:31.the Foreign Secretary, yes. Just the Foreign Secretary? No, we took
:15:32. > :15:39.evidence from the Foreign Secretary, we took evidence from the
:15:40. > :15:46.Government's Middle East advisor and we had, and it is part of an on
:15:47. > :15:48.going inquiry into the strategy against Isil. It is a narrow
:15:49. > :15:53.question this. What the British House of Commons does about eight
:15:54. > :15:57.British aeroplanes is a rather marginal issue when set against the
:15:58. > :16:03.whole coalition operation and the conduct of international strategy.
:16:04. > :16:06.Military involvement would be minimal, wouldn't it? Yes.
:16:07. > :16:18.Sepp Now should the Government
:16:19. > :16:20.re-introduce national tests That's the subject of a consultation
:16:21. > :16:23.being announced today by the education secretary Nicky Morgan,
:16:24. > :16:25.who wants to look at replacing the current system of informal
:16:26. > :16:27.testing introduced under Labour. Let's have a listen to Nicky Morgan
:16:28. > :16:32.speaking earlier. I want it make sure primary schools
:16:33. > :16:36.and headteachers are being held to account in the right way. In a way
:16:37. > :16:39.that's fair and rewards those who take on a challenge. New more
:16:40. > :16:42.rigorous SATs are being introduced at the end of primary school and the
:16:43. > :16:45.new reception baseline assessment has been introduced in primary
:16:46. > :16:47.schools this year. But to be really confident that students are grossing
:16:48. > :16:51.well through primary school, we will be looking at the assessment of
:16:52. > :16:53.pupils at the age of seven to make sure it is robust and rigorous, as
:16:54. > :16:55.it needs to be. We're joined now by the Schools
:16:56. > :17:06.Minister, Nick Gibb. The NUT says you are turning schools
:17:07. > :17:09.into exam factories making teachers teach to the tests. You will have
:17:10. > :17:15.heard these criticisms before. But now you are going a step further to
:17:16. > :17:19.formalise the tests. What do you say in response? There are already tests
:17:20. > :17:23.at seven. We want to work with teachers to make sure they are as
:17:24. > :17:28.rigorous and robust as possible to use the results to measure progress
:17:29. > :17:32.the children make in the next four years up to key stage 2. Can you not
:17:33. > :17:36.do that already? We can't because we don't collect the data from those
:17:37. > :17:42.tests. That's one issue but we want to look at the detail with teachers,
:17:43. > :17:46.it is about helping schools be held accountable in a fair way that
:17:47. > :17:49.reflects the challenges they have with their intake, so they are held
:17:50. > :17:53.accountable in a fair way. That's what we are trying to achieve. I
:17:54. > :17:58.know with my own children, the tests at the moment are informal and at
:17:59. > :18:04.the age of seven you don't want a formal testing on them, the burden,
:18:05. > :18:07.you don't want them to get worried. Teachers complain time is spent,
:18:08. > :18:09.taken out of the school day, to target these tests, instead of
:18:10. > :18:15.teaching in the round? Well that's not the right approach. A friend of
:18:16. > :18:21.mine was telling me their child came home from school a seven-year-old
:18:22. > :18:24.and he asked how he had done in the test and he said "what tests? "
:18:25. > :18:28.That's how good schools use the tests. It is important to identify
:18:29. > :18:32.the children who are struggling. We want to ensure our schools system
:18:33. > :18:35.are delivering excellence everywhere and every child is stretched to the
:18:36. > :18:38.full potential and struggling children are helped if they are
:18:39. > :18:42.falling behind. Is there evidence at the age of seven you can take that
:18:43. > :18:47.sort of broad measure and predict how the child is going to do in
:18:48. > :18:52.five, ten years' time, they do develop at ditch rates, don't they?
:18:53. > :18:54.They do. It is not about the child at seven, assessing the child
:18:55. > :18:58.itself. It is about measuring progress. You need a starting point.
:18:59. > :19:02.The tests for seven-year-olds, woented be published on a
:19:03. > :19:06.school-by-school basis. They won't reflect the future of the child. --
:19:07. > :19:13.won't be published. It is a baseline for measuring progress. The fairest
:19:14. > :19:16.way to hold schools to account. How supportives are teachers and
:19:17. > :19:20.teaching unions? You have heard the comments from some of the unions. My
:19:21. > :19:23.understaunding when I meet some teachers is they want the best for
:19:24. > :19:28.every child. Do you think this will be the best way to do it? We want to
:19:29. > :19:32.constult with teachers to make sure the way we develop these tests is
:19:33. > :19:38.something we can use to help the teaching profession. Does it have
:19:39. > :19:47.your support? Yes it does. You should understand. I'm also liking
:19:48. > :19:52.of the Jess waits, give me a boy the a seven and I will give you a man
:19:53. > :19:52.of the Jess waits, give me a boy the When they come out at 11, it
:19:53. > :19:57.determines how they will When they come out at 11, it
:19:58. > :20:05.GCSEs. If they don't get there at 11 If they do, half get
:20:06. > :20:08.GCSEs. If they don't get there at 11 if they get beyond t 09% will
:20:09. > :20:11.GCSEs. If they don't get there at 11 beyond T getting it right in the
:20:12. > :20:15.early years is a key objective. If you find that teaches and schools
:20:16. > :20:18.decide they don't really want to go down that route, at a time when
:20:19. > :20:20.decide they don't really want to go wanted to give more autonomy to
:20:21. > :20:24.schools, shouldn't they be the one who is decide? I think there
:20:25. > :20:25.schools, shouldn't they be the one role for the state to hold schools
:20:26. > :20:28.for account for the pay role for the state to hold schools
:20:29. > :20:31.tax payers' money to ensure every child gets the best chance in life.
:20:32. > :20:34.A legitimate role. We child gets the best chance in life.
:20:35. > :20:36.the terms with child gets the best chance in life.
:20:37. > :20:41.profession to make sure they do have their support. What about the
:20:42. > :20:44.shortage of teachers? The statistics are showing quite serious shortages
:20:45. > :20:49.in particular subjects. And it is going to take many years for those
:20:50. > :20:52.gaps to be filled. Isn't that a much greater priority? It is a priority
:20:53. > :20:56.fted dope. There are 455,000 teachers, the highest number of
:20:57. > :21:01.teachers we have ever had. It is 1,000 more than we had in 2010. The
:21:02. > :21:05.short fall when we have a growing population, a growing school
:21:06. > :21:09.population, they show 57% recruitment short fall in design and
:21:10. > :21:12.technology and a short fall in religious education. It goes on.
:21:13. > :21:17.Less in music teachers but still short falls, even down to geography,
:21:18. > :21:21.maths and English. That's much more seriously than formalising tests at
:21:22. > :21:25.the age of seven, surely? The vacancy rate is under 1%. We don't
:21:26. > :21:28.underestimate the challenge. When you have a strong and growing
:21:29. > :21:31.economy, of course there is going to be demand for graduates leaving
:21:32. > :21:35.universities but we are making progress. The numbers starting
:21:36. > :21:39.teacher training this year is 3% up on last year. There are some
:21:40. > :21:44.shortage subjects where we will struggle and we have for many years,
:21:45. > :21:48.to recruit but not every new teacher coming into teaching comes through
:21:49. > :21:51.the teacher training colleges. A lot of teachers starting are returners
:21:52. > :21:55.coming back into schoo.s we are introducing generous bursaries for
:21:56. > :21:59.physics and maths graduates and shortage be subjects like foreign
:22:00. > :22:03.language and English. We are having an effective advertising campaign.
:22:04. > :22:08.We are engaging in every possible policy... Well you sound like you
:22:09. > :22:12.are. Briefly, Nicky Morgan is she working better with the blob as
:22:13. > :22:19.Michael Gove called it? Well Nicky Morgan is determined to continue the
:22:20. > :22:24.reform process to ensure high standards. We wantical educational
:22:25. > :22:27.intelligence everywhere. She's continuing great work that has
:22:28. > :22:35.happened over the last five years, and we are moving it further forward
:22:36. > :22:38.for new test muty polycation tests. More homework for parents, I think.
:22:39. > :22:40.Yesterday MPs voted to agree on the Government's Housing
:22:41. > :22:42.and Planning Bill which will extend the right-to-buy
:22:43. > :22:45.It was a promise made by the Conservatives during the general
:22:46. > :22:48.election campaign, but didn't find favour on all sides of the house.
:22:49. > :22:59.Could the Secretary of State explain how selling housing association
:23:00. > :23:02.properties, subsidising that sale by selling council properties - half
:23:03. > :23:05.the stock in the case of my local authority - reducing local authority
:23:06. > :23:08.incomes to build properties by reducing rent and allowing
:23:09. > :23:12.developers to get away without building any social homes, how does
:23:13. > :23:15.that help the thousands of people in housing need in my constituency?
:23:16. > :23:19.I'll come on to address the points that the
:23:20. > :23:22.honourable gentlemen makes but I would say at this point, the reason
:23:23. > :23:26.it helps, is we are requiring that there is a new home built for every
:23:27. > :23:32.That will improve the housing stock in London.
:23:33. > :23:36.Given that the Bill fails to include any legal commitment to replace
:23:37. > :23:40.social homes that are sold under right-to-buy on a one-to-one basis,
:23:41. > :23:45.will he accept that selling off valuable council homes to fund the
:23:46. > :23:48.extension of right-to-buy, means we are losing two social homes to rent,
:23:49. > :23:53.in return for one social home to buy, that's an overall loss.
:23:54. > :23:58.The rate of additional stock that is being provided, in response to the
:23:59. > :24:05.reinvigorated council right-to-buy, is running at over one-for-one
:24:06. > :24:12.and the agreement that we have been able to reach with the housing
:24:13. > :24:15.associations makes it very clear - and if the honourable lady hasn't
:24:16. > :24:18.had a copy of that, I will make sure she has a copy -
:24:19. > :24:21.that these homes will be replaced on at least a one-for-one basis.
:24:22. > :24:26.The homes continue to be occupied, it is an additional home that is
:24:27. > :24:42.So that was a flavour of yesterday's Commons debate.
:24:43. > :24:44.Well we asked a government minister to come on
:24:45. > :24:47.and talk about their plans, but were told none was available.
:24:48. > :24:49.But worry not as we're joined by the Shadow Housing Minister John
:24:50. > :24:52.Healey, and our guest of the day Jacob Rees-Mogg is still here.
:24:53. > :24:57.John Healey more starter homes, powers to tackle rogue landlords and
:24:58. > :25:01.powers to the planning system to allow more homes to be built. What
:25:02. > :25:04.do you not like? Starter homes will be a non-starter for most families
:25:05. > :25:08.and young people on organised incomes. So they will miss the very
:25:09. > :25:14.group that the Conservatives say they are trying to help. The
:25:15. > :25:21.clamp-down on rogue landlords is good as far as it goes, but it is
:25:22. > :25:24.much too little to deal with many of the problems and pressures people
:25:25. > :25:28.have in the private rented sector and we have 11 million people now
:25:29. > :25:31.living in the private rented sector and no mention of course of them at
:25:32. > :25:35.all in the Conservative manifesto. This is a Bill that needs to be
:25:36. > :25:39.changed big style, it as goes through Parliament, if it is going
:25:40. > :25:43.to do the job to help meet the wide housing need that we have in this
:25:44. > :25:46.country for all types of homes. Right, I mean there is a serious
:25:47. > :25:50.housing crisis in this country. All sides of the House agree with that.
:25:51. > :25:55.Should the focus really be on selling off council homes, to fund
:25:56. > :25:59.schemes like extending right-to-buy. You know, should it really be about
:26:00. > :26:06.first-time buyers, helping them to buy houses of up to ?450,000, which
:26:07. > :26:11.is out of the reach of most people? Selling council homes is a really
:26:12. > :26:15.sensible thing to do. That the same people carry on living in those
:26:16. > :26:18.properties. That you still have people living in the homes they
:26:19. > :26:21.bought when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. The idea that the
:26:22. > :26:27.home is taking out of the housing stock is fundamentally false. I
:26:28. > :26:29.think it makes this debate misleading, it leads to
:26:30. > :26:34.misunderstandings. The key is going to be building. Pricing, in all
:26:35. > :26:38.markets, is set at the margin where, supply and demand do not meet. And
:26:39. > :26:42.because supply is not meeting demand, house prices in this country
:26:43. > :26:46.are very high. If we can build more houses, increase the supply to meet
:26:47. > :26:50.the demand, then price also level off. We will come to the prices. But
:26:51. > :26:53.let's go back to the issue about selling off council homes. Because
:26:54. > :26:57.it is very controversial but it was something that previous Labour
:26:58. > :27:04.governments also persued and thought was a good idea. The problem with
:27:05. > :27:08.Jacob Rees-Mogg's argument is four out of ten every council houses sold
:27:09. > :27:12.are not bought to live in but bought to let. And that's what happened.
:27:13. > :27:17.The second big problem, over the last five years, the council homes
:27:18. > :27:19.that have been sold, have not been replaced one-for-one as the
:27:20. > :27:24.Government promised but nine sold for every one replaced. That problem
:27:25. > :27:28.is likely to get worse, as we heard yesterday in the Commons. False sale
:27:29. > :27:32.of council homes -- forced sale of council homes in order to pay for
:27:33. > :27:35.the ex-tense of the right-to-buy for housing association tennants. It
:27:36. > :27:39.will be a huge let down for the tennants who believe they have a
:27:40. > :27:42.chance of their own home and a huge loss of affordable homes across the
:27:43. > :27:46.country. Why shouldn't there be a legal requirement to replace or make
:27:47. > :27:50.sure that any home lost is replaced by another affordable or council
:27:51. > :27:54.home? I don't think it is necessarily. The Government has made
:27:55. > :27:59.that commitment. On the house that is go into the private rented
:28:00. > :28:04.sector... They haven't made a legal requirement. Hold on a second.
:28:05. > :28:07.Should it be a legal requirement? They have not made that commitment.
:28:08. > :28:11.I don't believe a legal requirement is necessary. The thing is, when
:28:12. > :28:16.people let out their house in the private rented sector, a lot of that
:28:17. > :28:19.may then be paid for through housing benefit, so there is support for
:28:20. > :28:23.people who have homes and there are two different ways of doing it. One
:28:24. > :28:27.is through private sector and housing benefit. The other is
:28:28. > :28:30.through socially subsidised housing. Neither is intrisically morally
:28:31. > :28:34.better. Both provide housing for people. One meets the immediate
:28:35. > :28:38.needs of people, allows for greater moeblted and that's housing benefit.
:28:39. > :28:43.The other provides greater security of tenure. And I don't think there
:28:44. > :28:46.is a solution that is purely social housing or purely housing benefit. I
:28:47. > :28:51.think the mix is about right. Well, if we don't want to talk which is
:28:52. > :28:58.better morally, let's at least talk what is better value for the
:28:59. > :29:02.taxpayer? It is clear if you invest public money and invest in new homes
:29:03. > :29:06.and rent the them at a social housing level, you can recycle on
:29:07. > :29:09.the benefits and stop the housing benefits bill soaring through the
:29:10. > :29:14.roof as it has done over the last five years. It is much better value
:29:15. > :29:17.for tennants and tax payers. It is not necessarily better value for
:29:18. > :29:20.money because you are ignoring the sunk cost of the capital investment
:29:21. > :29:26.which you would expect to get a return on. Governments have a choice
:29:27. > :29:30.between day-to-day expenditure and capital expenditure but both have a
:29:31. > :29:34.cost. Can I put to you there are many Tory MPs, enough, probably, to
:29:35. > :29:43.get the legislation through, who are unhappy about the idea of councils
:29:44. > :29:46.being forced to sell off their big expensive council house properties,
:29:47. > :29:52.which isn't used to... Boys Johnson one.
:29:53. > :29:56.. . Councils should not own high value properties. It is about
:29:57. > :30:01.providing housing. It is not about owning properties. As Westminster
:30:02. > :30:05.Council used to do a few hundred yards from here. Smith Square, they
:30:06. > :30:08.were owned by the council. Multi-million pound houses, it is
:30:09. > :30:13.crazy, of course they should be sold. What about the private sector,
:30:14. > :30:16.what would you like to see done to help people who are paying expensive
:30:17. > :30:19.rents, paying for it themselves, can't get council housing or some
:30:20. > :30:23.sorts of subsidised housing. What should be done? At least three
:30:24. > :30:29.things. First, you have to start from the point that our tennants in
:30:30. > :30:33.the private rent sector have a very poor set of rights as consumers.
:30:34. > :30:38.Fist of all, there ought to be a standard length of tenancy for three
:30:39. > :30:41.years, then there ought to be a break on an agreement about the rent
:30:42. > :30:45.rises through that period and there ought to be a clear obligation, with
:30:46. > :30:50.ways of redress for those people who can't get their landlords to repair
:30:51. > :30:53.the windows, deal with the mould and dotted proper job they had should be
:30:54. > :30:57.doing if they are responsible landlords. Do the proper job. Do you
:30:58. > :30:57.doing if they are responsible agree your Government is focussing
:30:58. > :31:03.It is Her Majesty's Government, not much more on home-ownership.
:31:04. > :31:05.It is Her Majesty's Government, not mine, home ownership should remain
:31:06. > :31:06.the focus of Government policy, mine, home ownership should remain
:31:07. > :31:09.on the private rented mine, home ownership should remain
:31:10. > :31:14.have a choice between a flexible mine, home ownership should remain
:31:15. > :31:16.that it does and a highly regulated one and we have tried this before
:31:17. > :31:23.through the 60s and the 70s, one and we have tried this before
:31:24. > :31:26.a very regulated, but small regulated sector. We have a large
:31:27. > :31:29.unregulated one. regulated sector. We have a large
:31:30. > :31:33.things that need to be adjusted in favour of the tenants, but if too
:31:34. > :31:40.much is done, there won't be the properties. They have got their own
:31:41. > :31:46.track record, five years of failure. Home ownership has fallen through
:31:47. > :31:50.the floor since 2010. Jacob wasn't in the chamber yesterday, I heard
:31:51. > :31:51.concern from Conservative in the chamber yesterday, I heard
:31:52. > :32:00.about the Bill. About starter homes in the chamber yesterday, I heard
:32:01. > :32:05.which would be beyond reach of many ordinary
:32:06. > :32:09.which would be beyond reach of many to impose
:32:10. > :32:13.even if local people have decided they don't want them this. Is
:32:14. > :32:16.even if local people have decided Conservative Party and even the Tory
:32:17. > :32:19.mayoral candidate for London, said Conservative Party and even the Tory
:32:20. > :32:23.he couldn't support the Bill unless it was amended. It is a slow burn
:32:24. > :32:28.he couldn't support the Bill unless problem which will go to 2020.
:32:29. > :32:30.Now let's stick with talking about property, but move to
:32:31. > :32:34.In his Autumn Statement last year George Osborne made a series
:32:35. > :32:37.of reforms to the way property taxes work including a substantial
:32:38. > :32:40.hike on the stamp duty paid on homes worth more ?1.5 million.
:32:41. > :32:43.Some saw it as an attempt to frustrate Labour and the Lib Dems
:32:44. > :32:47.And it's apparently having an effect on the sales of the UK's
:32:48. > :32:58.I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk
:32:59. > :33:05.Gordon Brown, in his first Budget as Chancellor, introducing
:33:06. > :33:09.Stuck 2% on purposes of a property worth more than ?500,000.
:33:10. > :33:11.Fast-forward 17 years and you have a Conservative Chancellor tinkering
:33:12. > :33:18.It's time we fundamentally changed this badly-designed tax
:33:19. > :33:22.George Osborne said his changes would cut stamp duty
:33:23. > :33:25.for 98% of home buyers in last year's Autumn Statement.
:33:26. > :33:28.But it came at the expense of those at the higher end
:33:29. > :33:35.Properties worth more than ?1.5 million were in for a 12% tax bill.
:33:36. > :33:46.So I've worked out you only need to spend about ?2.5 million - evidently
:33:47. > :33:51.not that hard to do here in London - to be landed with a stamp duty bill
:33:52. > :33:54.that's worth more than the entire amount I spent on my small flat.
:33:55. > :33:57.Industry types say such high stamp duty bills have slowed
:33:58. > :34:00.down the market at the higher end and that will affect the amount
:34:01. > :34:09.We've looked at the tax take between January and July
:34:10. > :34:13.of this year and yes, the tax take is down in the prime central London
:34:14. > :34:14.boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster.
:34:15. > :34:16.And I think looking at last year's figures,
:34:17. > :34:19.we saw a slowdown in terms of the revenue being created in those
:34:20. > :34:23.boroughs, but it is the rest of the country, so in essence the prime end
:34:24. > :34:29.The tax take is slowing and you could argue to some extent the
:34:30. > :34:36.The Chancellor's changes came months before the general election with
:34:37. > :34:40.the backdrop of Labour's mansion tax proposals.
:34:41. > :34:43.The decision may have been as much about politics as it was economics.
:34:44. > :34:47.The Chancellor and his ministers will muse on the question of whether
:34:48. > :34:54.it is worth losing ?2 or ?3 billion worth of stamp duty on houses at
:34:55. > :34:57.that are very expensive in order to be off the hook of the embarrassment
:34:58. > :35:00.of endless stories about how rich people are coming from overseas
:35:01. > :35:05.If that stops, they might think it is a price worth paying.
:35:06. > :35:08.The Treasury has downgraded its forecast for the amount
:35:09. > :35:12.of revenue stamp duty will bring in in the last year of this Parliament,
:35:13. > :35:22.And it could be a slightly quieter autumn for some estate agents.
:35:23. > :35:25.Ellie there taking a look at the effect of the stamp tax changes.
:35:26. > :35:27.So let's remind ourselves how stamp duty currently works.
:35:28. > :35:30.In England, Wales and Northern Ireland you must
:35:31. > :35:34.pay stamp duty land tax - stamp duty for short - if you buy a property.
:35:35. > :35:37.Until last December, it charged successively higher rates
:35:38. > :35:41.on the whole of the purchase price, a structure which saw it known
:35:42. > :35:47.But in the 2014 Autumn Statement Chancellor George Osborne announced
:35:48. > :35:50.a reform of stamp duty after criticising what he called a
:35:51. > :35:58.Under the new staggered system, stamp duty only applied to
:35:59. > :36:00.the amount of a property purchase price that falls
:36:01. > :36:15.So up to ?125,000, you don't pay anything.
:36:16. > :36:18.Then on the value between ?125,000 and ?250,000, you pay 2%.
:36:19. > :36:23.Between ?250,000 and ?925,000, you pay 5%.
:36:24. > :36:26.Between ?925,000 and ?1.5 million, you pay 10%.
:36:27. > :36:28.And on the remaining amount, that's anything above ?1.5 million,
:36:29. > :36:39.Got it? Most homebuyers benefited, but those who fell
:36:40. > :36:45.If you spend ?2.1 million on a home, instead of the ?147,000 you paid
:36:46. > :36:57.And the rates are lower in Scotland, where a Land and
:36:58. > :36:59.Buildings Transaction Tax was introduced in April this year.
:37:00. > :37:01.Well, we're joined now by the Guardian columnist
:37:02. > :37:07.Owen Jones, and our guest of the day Jacob Rees Mogg is still here.
:37:08. > :37:13.We're not letting him go. Why is it bad economics to charge people
:37:14. > :37:18.buying houses over ?2 million higher rates of stamp duty? Because it is
:37:19. > :37:22.reducing revenue for the Government. Taxes should be set to raise money
:37:23. > :37:26.for the Government to afford to do what it needs to do. And if you set
:37:27. > :37:31.rates that are so high that you don't get that revenue, that is
:37:32. > :37:35.unwise, but on top of that, you're also reducing the flexibility of the
:37:36. > :37:39.market. You want markets to have transactions. You want people to be
:37:40. > :37:42.able to move. You actually want foreign billionaires to think it is
:37:43. > :37:47.a good idea to buy property in London because they come here and
:37:48. > :37:50.they spend money and we earn a huge amount of invincible earnings from
:37:51. > :37:55.the spending of foreigners in the United Kingdom. So you make it
:37:56. > :37:57.harder for people to buy properties, you discourage high end transactions
:37:58. > :38:02.and you have an effect down the pyramid and you get less tax
:38:03. > :38:06.revenues for it. So this maybe passable politics, but it is not
:38:07. > :38:10.good economics. Do you think it is just about politics? This was George
:38:11. > :38:14.Osborne trying to show he would be fairer when it came to stamp duty It
:38:15. > :38:19.is probably in response to the so-called mansion tax, the gimmicky
:38:20. > :38:22.policy Labour stole off the Lib Dems during the general election.
:38:23. > :38:27.However, I mean, you know, I know you're trying to get me to defend
:38:28. > :38:32.George Osborne against one of his backbenchers. I don't like stamp
:38:33. > :38:37.duty. I would get rid of it and replace tax, it is a regressive tax
:38:38. > :38:40.and it is bad for low and middle income tax with a land value tax, we
:38:41. > :38:45.should tax the value of the land. It is an old idea, it goes back to the
:38:46. > :38:52.well-known lefty, the economist Adam Smith in countries like Denmark, and
:38:53. > :38:56.Hong Kong operate this, Pennsylvania in America, we could go on. It is a
:38:57. > :39:01.better system, what is unfair at the moment is if you're rich and you
:39:02. > :39:04.happen to live in an area which is desirable, you will accrue a huge
:39:05. > :39:09.amount of wealth, not from your own efforts, but because you are living
:39:10. > :39:12.in a desirable area. If you are a private renter of which there are 11
:39:13. > :39:17.million, your rents are being hiked up. If you want a council house, you
:39:18. > :39:21.are languishing on society house waiting list, there are five million
:39:22. > :39:24.in that position now. The whole housing crisis, we need to build
:39:25. > :39:27.housing and regulate the private rented sector and when it kms to
:39:28. > :39:38.home ownership, unthis Government, it has fallen. There is 250,000
:39:39. > :39:44.fewer homeowners. I think we can promote home ownership, build
:39:45. > :39:46.council housing. It goes against the grain for Conservatives over home
:39:47. > :39:50.ownership if there are fewer people owning their own homes. Most people,
:39:51. > :39:54.I would put to you, watching this will say who cares whether rich
:39:55. > :39:57.oligarchs are finding it more difficult to come and buy top end
:39:58. > :40:03.homes here in London? That's a good thing. I completely understand that
:40:04. > :40:07.rich oligarchs are not the most popular constituency to defend. Well
:40:08. > :40:11.done for having a go. The question is whether by attacking them or
:40:12. > :40:15.viewing them as being the opponent, you take decisions that are
:40:16. > :40:20.economically disadvantageous down the housing pyramid and I think
:40:21. > :40:27.stamp duty at 5% above ?250,000 is very high. It is a big burden for
:40:28. > :40:34.people moving within family homes. I would argue from a more progressive
:40:35. > :40:37.value-added tax. In term of foreign ownership, I don't know what the
:40:38. > :40:43.figures are now, but a couple of years ago, it was estimated out out
:40:44. > :40:47.of ten new build properties were being snapped up by foreign buyers,
:40:48. > :40:51.they are often left vacant and empty at a time when lots of people can't
:40:52. > :40:54.get a home and that's pushing up prices and making it unaffordable
:40:55. > :40:57.for the average homebuyer because prices are unaffordable. I don't
:40:58. > :41:02.agree with that. Which bit don't you agree? The reason the prices are
:41:03. > :41:04.going up is because we are not building enough houses and there is
:41:05. > :41:08.a lack of supply and we need to tackle that. A lot of existing
:41:09. > :41:12.properties in London are owned by local people who are also finding it
:41:13. > :41:16.harder to move because of this tax. But it is reducing revenue for the
:41:17. > :41:26.exchequer, so the Government is limited in what it is able to do. I
:41:27. > :41:30.don't support that. There are difficulties can capital taxation,
:41:31. > :41:34.except where there is a transaction, there is no flow of income to pay
:41:35. > :41:38.the tax from and therefore, you force people to make inefficient
:41:39. > :41:42.decisions in terms of their allocation of capital. The whole
:41:43. > :41:46.property speculation market led people to cash in on their assets
:41:47. > :41:49.while twiddling their thumbs rather than through work? The assumption
:41:50. > :41:54.that house prices will rise forever is not a correct one. We have seen
:41:55. > :41:58.periods in the past when property prices collapsed. Has the Government
:41:59. > :42:01.not fuelled that? The Government should not be in the business in
:42:02. > :42:04.trying it get house prices to go up or down. We have seen that type of
:42:05. > :42:09.demand price management from Governments in the past and it is a
:42:10. > :42:18.very... Your Government, is doing that. For example, Right to Buy,
:42:19. > :42:22.that gimmicky scheme is pushing up house prices and your Government is
:42:23. > :42:26.catastrophicically failing to build housing in this country. Well, it is
:42:27. > :42:29.getting better from the last Government as you know perfectly
:42:30. > :42:33.well. Your Government has been in power for over five years. Planning
:42:34. > :42:36.is a slow system, but it is getting there. The Government is doing... We
:42:37. > :42:43.need to be building there. The Government is doing... We
:42:44. > :42:47.year. The record was lamentable under Labour too The
:42:48. > :42:48.year. The record was lamentable the economic model that your
:42:49. > :42:53.chancellor has, we have an economic model based on inflated house prices
:42:54. > :42:54.which leads to huge economic instability as we
:42:55. > :42:59.which leads to huge economic past. Now what we should be doing is
:43:00. > :43:01.giving councils the power to build housing, it will create jobs and
:43:02. > :43:04.brick housing, it will create jobs and
:43:05. > :43:09.as well as reduce the waiting lists housing, it will create jobs and
:43:10. > :43:11.sector, let's look at home ownership. Looking at for example
:43:12. > :43:13.stamp duty, replacing it with a progressive tax like land value tax.
:43:14. > :43:21.You had the progressive tax like land value tax.
:43:22. > :43:23.will make sure he doesn't. Now Labour's economic policy under
:43:24. > :43:26.Jeremy Corbyn and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell is still a work
:43:27. > :43:29.in progress, but they've set out some of the broad principles that
:43:30. > :43:32.separate the party under its new Here's Mr Corbyn speaking at his
:43:33. > :43:36.party conference back in September. The many with little or nothing, are
:43:37. > :43:42.told they live in a global economy They must accept the place assigned
:43:43. > :43:47.to them by competitive markets. By the way, isn't it really curious
:43:48. > :43:50.that globalisation seems to always mean low wages for the poor people
:43:51. > :43:54.but always used to justify massive payments for top chief executives
:43:55. > :43:59.of global corporations? Our Labour Party came
:44:00. > :44:11.into being more than a century ago, Well, one figure we recognise from
:44:12. > :44:20.before the Corbyn era is the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury
:44:21. > :44:23.under Gordon Brown, Liam Byrne, and today he's been offering his own
:44:24. > :44:26.thoughts on where Labour's economic policy should go next, he's calling
:44:27. > :44:41.it "entrepreneurial socialism". So, you have set out in a speech
:44:42. > :44:44.what you have called an alternative economic strategy. What is your
:44:45. > :44:48.message to the Labour Leadership? My first message is to the Labour
:44:49. > :44:51.Party. Which is that we have to respect Jeremy's mandate and his
:44:52. > :44:57.mantra, that the fight against inequality has to be centre stage in
:44:58. > :45:01.our politics. Jeremy has set out during his leadership campaign, a
:45:02. > :45:03.lot on which we agree. Tax Jews particulars welfare efficiency,
:45:04. > :45:06.industrial policy, green strategy. There are a if you things, though --
:45:07. > :45:13.tax justice. There are a few things that are risk
:45:14. > :45:19.failure. I'm not a fan of quantitative easing. Printing money
:45:20. > :45:25.when the economy is growing. Not a fan of wholesale nationalisation.
:45:26. > :45:28.Those are the planks from which his economic policy would spring
:45:29. > :45:35.forward. You will disagree with the basics? He has called for real
:45:36. > :45:40.debate. After top-down politics for 20 years, it is a breath of fresh
:45:41. > :45:43.air which is welcome. There is a different approach no rewriting
:45:44. > :45:46.rules of some institutions like Bank of England, capital markets, science
:45:47. > :45:49.poll circumstances National Curriculum and Social Security
:45:50. > :45:53.system. I guess what I'm saying to my wivengt party, if you like, is we
:45:54. > :45:57.have to get with the programme now, to my wing of the party. We have to
:45:58. > :46:01.fight against the progress of equality. And if we have better
:46:02. > :46:05.ideas, let's put them on the table and add to the debate. You have
:46:06. > :46:09.better ideas, you think in the round than the current leadership. How are
:46:10. > :46:13.you going to persuade them? Well, my arguing the corner. They have the
:46:14. > :46:17.mandate. And in fact we have made from John McDonnell that he agrees
:46:18. > :46:22.watch of what you say but you have to go in his direction? I think the
:46:23. > :46:28.whole of the party has actually got to focus on the central ground that
:46:29. > :46:30.Jeremy has mapped out, reversing the spiralling inequality spiralling the
:46:31. > :46:35.country. But to be fair to Jeremy and John they have called for an
:46:36. > :46:40.open debate and we have to get stuck into the debate on the terms Jeremy
:46:41. > :46:44.has set out. Jeremy Corbyn declined an to speak at the CBI annual
:46:45. > :46:47.conference. Do you think it would have been better to him and for
:46:48. > :46:51.Labour to engage with business at that level? Well, look, I used to be
:46:52. > :46:55.in business before I went into politics. I was was intren air
:46:56. > :46:59.before I got elected in 2004. I do think it is a good idea to engage in
:47:00. > :47:06.business for this reason - entrepreneur. I think there is a
:47:07. > :47:10.widespread view in the business economy that inequality is hurting
:47:11. > :47:15.growth and we need to work with those who want to change things. How
:47:16. > :47:18.big a mistake was it for him not to g the Shadow Chancellor and Shadow
:47:19. > :47:23.Business Secretary? Nobody wanted to speak to the CBI I think it would
:47:24. > :47:28.have been better to go but I don't think it is a massive dee. You said
:47:29. > :47:32.in your introe, our economic policy is a work in progress. I would get
:47:33. > :47:37.across this message, there are lots of people in the business community
:47:38. > :47:42.who want to cre create wealth and social justice. We need to embrace
:47:43. > :47:47.with them H Are you worried, you are not, you have set out an alternative
:47:48. > :47:50.and are getting stuck in. Some of the fears expressed by parliamentary
:47:51. > :47:55.colleagues of your on this programme is that by not falling into line
:47:56. > :47:59.with the new Labour leadership on a range of issues, you may be the sort
:48:00. > :48:02.of candidate who could face a challenge of deselection when it
:48:03. > :48:07.comes to the boundaries being redrawn? I don't worry about that. I
:48:08. > :48:10.think we have to, in the parliamentary Parliament, listen to
:48:11. > :48:15.the mandate Jeremy has been given and the man trashing the central
:48:16. > :48:18.battle is the battle for ideas in reversing spiralling inequality and
:48:19. > :48:21.we have to look at the best ideas possible. To express that unionivity
:48:22. > :48:26.purpose, I have said we need to rewrite clause 4 our aims and values
:48:27. > :48:30.to put the fight of Ian quality centre stage and to say to everybody
:48:31. > :48:35.on the party but the country beyond, we are all on the same side. The
:48:36. > :48:42.reason why both Jeremy Corbyn corn and I are in the Labour Party, he is
:48:43. > :48:46.not a trot. Ian' not a Tory we share the unease about inequality and want
:48:47. > :48:50.to do something about it. What do you say to Tristan Hunt to says the
:48:51. > :48:55.Labour could turn into a sect. I say to everybody in the Labour Party. We
:48:56. > :48:59.have to get stuck in. It is a battle of ideas. We can wint argument,
:49:00. > :49:00.let's crack on. So So from economic socialism to
:49:01. > :49:01.capitalism. Capitalism has succeeded
:49:02. > :49:03.in making the poor poorer At least that's what most us
:49:04. > :49:06.believe, according to a YouGov poll carried
:49:07. > :49:08.out in seven countries including The bad news for capitalism
:49:09. > :49:14.in the survey is that. There's an almost universal belief
:49:15. > :49:16.that the world's biggest businesses have cheated and polluted
:49:17. > :49:20.their way to success with barely 10% of respondents thinking big
:49:21. > :49:26.businesses are "clean". Substantial majorities in all seven
:49:27. > :49:28.countries surveyed think the poor The populations of Britain, Brazil,
:49:29. > :49:34.Germany and America don't expect their children to be richer,
:49:35. > :49:40.safer and healthier. But the good news is that for all of
:49:41. > :49:44.the negativity towards capitalism, more people in all seven nations
:49:45. > :49:48.believe that the free enterprise system is better at lifting people
:49:49. > :50:00.out of poverty than government. There is
:50:01. > :50:02.a widespread recognition that entrepreneurs and business leaders
:50:03. > :50:04.are just as important to society. The overwhelming majorities
:50:05. > :50:06.in all seven countries recognise that strong community and family
:50:07. > :50:09.life underpin a strong economy. To discuss this, Tim Montgomerie
:50:10. > :50:18.from The Times joins us. They are findings of a new report
:50:19. > :50:19.published tomorrow. It is due to be launched by the Chancellor, George
:50:20. > :50:28.Osborne. Welcome to the Daily Politics.
:50:29. > :50:37.Broadly, has capitalism #235i8d? I don't think it has failed in the
:50:38. > :50:44.fundamental sense. -- -- that is failed? Poverty around the world is
:50:45. > :50:49.falling at an historically unprecedented rate but if you ask
:50:50. > :50:55.people whether poverty or hunger rising, they think it is. So
:50:56. > :51:02.capitalism although it is good at advertising soap powder, car and
:51:03. > :51:07.computers is bad at selling itself. Its achievements are unknown. The
:51:08. > :51:14.fact is most people in Britain, America and Germany think the poor
:51:15. > :51:18.are getting poorer, and the reverse is the case, that shows capitalism
:51:19. > :51:21.has a terrible PR problem even though it is a very successful
:51:22. > :51:23.system. We have heard from Liam Byrne, he wants to concentrate
:51:24. > :51:25.Labour's fight on fighting inequality. Isn't it true in
:51:26. > :51:28.highly-developed country, there is an ever-widening gap between the
:51:29. > :51:31.poorest and the top 1%? There is a mixed picture. Within some advanced
:51:32. > :51:35.societies there is a widening gap between the top and the bottom. In
:51:36. > :51:38.the world as a whole, we are becoming more equal because the
:51:39. > :51:41.likes of China, India, Africa, are beginning to see their incomes
:51:42. > :51:44.rising. Don't people want to focus on what is happening, where they
:51:45. > :51:48.are? Of course. One of the opinion poll findings in this poll conducted
:51:49. > :51:53.for us by YouGov asked - what are the big problems. What do you want
:51:54. > :51:56.Government to focus on, fighting poverty, fighting unemployment or
:51:57. > :51:59.reducing inequality and bringing the super-rich down to size. By
:52:00. > :52:03.overwhelming majorities people want to focus on unemployment and
:52:04. > :52:07.poverty. The danger for Liam Byrne and the Labour Party if they go down
:52:08. > :52:11.this route, is they are going - while people worry about inequality,
:52:12. > :52:14.it is not their priority. Do you think, from your perspective, that
:52:15. > :52:19.actually the Tories should be doing more about trying to close the gap
:52:20. > :52:23.between the top, the highest earners and those at the very bottom.
:52:24. > :52:27.Absolutely not, no. I think you don't want to cut down the tall
:52:28. > :52:32.poppies. You want them to grow and flourish. They spend the money that
:52:33. > :52:35.helps lift everybody else up. Is there so much evidence that
:52:36. > :52:38.trickle-down economics works that effectively for those at the lower
:52:39. > :52:43.end of the pay scale? If you don't have an ct aive economy, the people
:52:44. > :52:46.at the bottom are the one who is suffer more. This is the argument
:52:47. > :52:49.the Chancellor has been making. The thing that hits the poorest of
:52:50. > :52:52.society most is a failing economy. If you frighten off your wealth
:52:53. > :52:54.creators your economy will fail. I don't think the Government should be
:52:55. > :52:59.concerned about inequality. It should be concerned in factually as
:53:00. > :53:02.Tim was saying, about issues relating to unemployment and people
:53:03. > :53:07.living in Poff tie giving them the routes out of, that which I think
:53:08. > :53:13.our welfare reforms have been doing. -- living in poverty. Was the last
:53:14. > :53:16.government sane the good too close to big business, that hoard its
:53:17. > :53:19.money, didn't spend, didn't invest to do much to help unemployment at
:53:20. > :53:23.that particular time when it should have been? The Government didn't
:53:24. > :53:27.seem to have any impact in that? In a word, yes. Absolutely too cloe.s
:53:28. > :53:30.Michael Gove at an event at the Conservative Party Conference he
:53:31. > :53:34.made a distinction, Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, made a
:53:35. > :53:38.distinction between the deserving rich and undeserving rich. We had
:53:39. > :53:41.this traditional distinction between the deserving poor and undeserving
:53:42. > :53:44.poor. He talked for example, about bankers who during the good times
:53:45. > :53:48.closed down the accounts of small business people who didn't pay on
:53:49. > :53:52.time and were very tough on the little guy but when they ran into
:53:53. > :53:55.trouble they were bailed out by the taxpayer. There are a lot of
:53:56. > :53:59.business, the fossil fuel industry, the bankers who got too close to
:54:00. > :54:03.Government. Government helps them out. There are lots of ladders on
:54:04. > :54:08.the way up, but not enough snakes on the way down. If capitalism is to be
:54:09. > :54:13.seen to be fair, the same rules that apply to the little guy, must apply
:54:14. > :54:16.to the big guy. That's one of the approaches we are taking in this
:54:17. > :54:20.institute manifesto, to ensure that capitalism works for everyone and
:54:21. > :54:24.the rules are equal. At the moment that's in the how capitalism is
:54:25. > :54:25.seen. We'll watch it closely. Thank you.
:54:26. > :54:28.Now Halloween has been and gone and that can only mean one thing.
:54:29. > :54:30.Not just plenty of discounted pumpkins in the supermarkets.
:54:31. > :54:33.But it's time for the proper British tradition of Bonfire Night,
:54:34. > :54:35.commemorating, of course, the failure of the Gunpowder Plot
:54:36. > :54:38.in November 1605 to blow up the Houses of Parliament.
:54:39. > :54:40.Let's have a look at how the popular CBBC programme,
:54:41. > :54:46.It was the plot that seemed unthinkable.
:54:47. > :54:53.So we are going to blow up King James and his entire family
:54:54. > :55:02.Because you are a Catholic and I'm a Catholic and the King
:55:03. > :55:05.He seems to think we are always plotting something.
:55:06. > :55:08.It was the plot that sounded impossible.
:55:09. > :55:15.So we are just supposed to roll 36 barrels of gun powder down the
:55:16. > :55:18.Thames, sneak it into this rented cellar, wait for Parliament to open,
:55:19. > :55:22.then I creep back in, light the fuse, run away and blow up the King
:55:23. > :55:29.OK, just checking I had that down right.
:55:30. > :55:35.It was the plot that surely would go wrong.
:55:36. > :55:38.Well, joining us now, and I hope he's not left any barrels
:55:39. > :55:44.of gunpowder deep under the Daily Politics studio, is Guy Fawkes.
:55:45. > :55:46.Otherwise known as Neal Foster, the manager of the Birmingham Stage
:55:47. > :55:52.Company and the director of Horrible Histories on tour.
:55:53. > :55:58.I love the outfit. Welcome on to the dale comblivenlingts remind us why
:55:59. > :56:03.it is such an important event and evening? -- welcome on to the daily
:56:04. > :56:05.mrivenlingts We wanted to blow up the Parliament and king and
:56:06. > :56:08.mrivenlingts We wanted to blow up members of the House of Lords
:56:09. > :56:09.mrivenlingts We wanted to blow up wanted to destroy the elite, so we
:56:10. > :56:11.could take over and wanted to destroy the elite, so we
:56:12. > :56:16.could be in charge Why do you think it still resonates?
:56:17. > :56:27.King James decided everyone Why do you think it still resonates?
:56:28. > :56:29.to celebrate it, right up until late in Victorian times. Now we celebrate
:56:30. > :56:38.it, in Victorian times. Now we celebrate
:56:39. > :56:40.Robert Catesby. It should be burn Bob, rather than Guy. What do you
:56:41. > :56:45.think of it historically Bob, rather than Guy. What do you
:56:46. > :56:49.we commemorate so religiously to coin a phrase. As a Papist, I
:56:50. > :56:54.we commemorate so religiously to some concerned. I'm glad the Pope
:56:55. > :57:00.isn't burned in effigy so much as he used to be. . There is a theory that
:57:01. > :57:05.it was organised by Robert Cecil, that he knew what was going on and
:57:06. > :57:09.hence the plot was so ludicrous that it couldn't be successful that the
:57:10. > :57:12.Government secret agents knew it was happening and wanted the
:57:13. > :57:16.Government secret agents knew it was against James. The first who had
:57:17. > :57:18.feelings of being more tolerant. His ministers didn't like that and
:57:19. > :57:23.therefore if they had a great plot ministers didn't like that and
:57:24. > :57:26.that went badly wrong and official commemorations to remind everyone of
:57:27. > :57:30.how awful the Catholics were, that would be a great victory for the
:57:31. > :57:36.establishment. There you have heard the aleasterntive few. Was it
:57:37. > :57:41.ludicrous? Given what they did to me, all my friends hung, drawn and
:57:42. > :57:46.quarter,ed insides were taken out and we were chopped into four
:57:47. > :57:52.pieces. I think someone might have said - hang on, we want to tell the
:57:53. > :57:56.truth. And then put the finger on Cecil. Where can we see you? We are
:57:57. > :58:01.on tour all over the country. That's right until July. Will you be going
:58:02. > :58:07.along, Jacob? Remember, remember, the 5th November. Gun powder treason
:58:08. > :58:10.and plot. I see no reason why gun powder treason should ever be
:58:11. > :58:14.forgot. I'm very impressed. You should win a prize just for doing
:58:15. > :58:16.that. Thank you for coming on and making it colourful for us. #12k3w4r
:58:17. > :58:19.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:20. > :58:21.The question was - what has Downing Street apparently "photo-shopped"
:58:22. > :58:42.Downing Street didn't Photoshop anything. You are so loyal. Hackers
:58:43. > :58:45.from an enemy power probably got into the Downing Street machine and
:58:46. > :58:50.put a poppy on the Prime Minister. Well done. This is' it for today.
:58:51. > :58:54.Thank you for being our guest of the day and to everybody else too. I
:58:55. > :59:00.will be back tomorrow at 11.30am. Goodbye.