03/11/2015 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 03/11/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Has the Government backed away from plans for a Commons vote on


That's the view of several newspapers this morning.


The first right-to-buy council house was sold back in 1979.


As MPs pass plans for a new wave of sales,


we'll be asking whether it will mean more, or fewer affordable homes.


The Chancellor is in Berlin, where he's discussing EU


renegotiation with his German counterpart and calling for a new


And with bonfire night just around the corner, we'll be talking


about the 410-year-old plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament.


All that in the next hour and with us for the whole


of the programme, it's the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.


As a child he said he wanted to be Prime Minister by the age of 70.


Well, we've checked this morning and at the moment


the bookies are only offering odds of 100-1 that he'll ever get to


Number Ten, but there's still plenty of time and an


appearance on this programme can only help.


First today, let's talk about George Osborne's trip to Berlin,


where he's been in talks with the German Finance Minister.


The visit has been billed as part of the Government's effort to


renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU


and he's been calling for safeguards to protect British businesses


Let's have a look at his speech to German business


Today we both have a responsibility also to show economic leadership in


Europe. For there is a simple truth. We are Europe's engine for jobs and


for growth. Since the economic crash seven years ago, our two economies


each expanded by the same 13%. That was George Osborne.


. Integrated eurozone, surrounded by a


looser group of countries using their own currency. Is that going to


be enough to satisfy for people to stay in the EU? We need a more


fundamental change in our relationship, a significantly looser


relationship with the European Union and not so much being in a different


tier as being an associate member who has free trade, but is not tied


up to the concept of political union and the steps towards that. Right,


so at the moment, you would vote to withdraw? At the moment, I would


vote to withdraw. Going on to what George Osborne is talking about with


his German counterpart, the treaty changes would be the recognition


that countries should have more than one currency? That's sensible and


actually the single market is not meant to allow people to


discriminate on the basis of currency already. So that's already


in the treaties, that's just changing the wording of something


that's already there. Amongst your colleagues, are they expecting


something substantial from the negotiations? The Government has


amazingly cleverly lowered expectations to a point where if


they get anything at all, people will be pleasantly surprised. The


question is whether what they do get in the end is sufficient. Currently


expectations are on the floor. What about the areas of freedom of


movement and immigration? For you, is that a must in terms of getting


some sort of deal for Britain to control or control further its own


borders? It is absolutely essential. Partly because it is Titanic and it


is one of the four freedoms and if the member state -- if the EU said


that a member state could pull out of that, it is not just that the EU


is demanding different You don't think things. That will happen?


180,000 economic migrants came from the EU last year. If we don't get


control of our borders, we will carry on having hundreds of


thousands coming in. The Prime Minister committed to getting the


number down to tens of thousands. He is a man who delivers on his


promise. He didn't in the last Parliament? He wants to try to


continue try to. He wants to sort out the free movement problem.


Now it's time for our daily quiz. The question for today is:


What item has Downing Street reportedly "photo-shopped" on to


At the end of the show Jacob will gives the correct answer.


The Times and The Guardian both report this morning that


the Government has backed away from asking MPs to vote on extending


Prompted, they say by a combination of a lack of


parliamentary support and Russia's intervention in the conflict.


Downing Street has vehemently denied the story,


saying the Prime Minister's position has always been that he will only


take the matter to the Commons when he is certain he has a majority.


Well, our political correspondent Vicki Young is on College Green


Has the Government changed its position regarding come to go the


House of Commons, asking for permission to take military action


in Syria? Well, Downing Street absolutely insist not and maybe Jo


we shouldn't get too hung up on the language of something being


abandoned or shelved for good. You think what we can say is when the


Tories were elected in May, there was real momentum building behind a


vote in the House of Commons, David Cameron making it very clear


publicly that was the way he wanted to go. They saw an inconsistency


between the UK launching bombing raids on Isis over Iraq, but not


over Syria and they wanted that to change, but the key thing they calls


talked about was the word consensus, they had to try and get it through


the House of Commons in a vote. Of course, he has a working majority,


David Cameron, of about 12ment there are many, many Tories MPs, very,


very resistant to this, very, very nervous about the idea of us getting


involved in Syria and complicating the whole matter. So what they have


been doing is speaking to Labour MPs over the last few months, talks have


been going on until recently with those in the Labour Party, who felt


that they might just be able to support the Conservatives on all of


this. Of course, complicated by the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader


would mean them defying their leader on this and what seems to have


happened, there was real momentum behind the move and the momentum has


gradually faded away. So if I behind the move and the momentum has


to ask a minister when a vote might behind the move and the momentum has


be held, what would behind the move and the momentum has


The answer would be when it could be won. I was


The answer would be when it could be they said,


The answer would be when it could be vote." It happened


The answer would be when it could be don't want David Cameron to be


humiliated, they think it would have an effect on his


humiliated, they think it would have world stage. The key thing was they


had to get the numbers behind them. They simply don't think they are


there. It has been complicated by there. It has been complicated by


that made MPs on both sides more nervous about all of this. They


that made MPs on both sides more think, many of them, that the UK


needs to concentrate on the diplomatic side


needs to concentrate on the trying to end the long civil war in


Syria. Thank you. Let's stick with Syria now,


as today also sees the publication of a report by the Commons Foreign


Affairs Select Committee concluding there is no legal or military


justification for extending air And the chairman of the committee,


the Conservative MP Crispin Blunt, Welcome back to the Daily Politics.


Your committee's report gives grist to the stay out of the war mill,


doesn't it? I think you have overstated what the report actually


said. The legal basis is questionable. The military


effectiveness is questionable as well, but probably only marginal and


it is not going to make a decisive impact on the conflict in Syria. It


is not as stark... Some members of the Foreign Affairs Committee have


gone further than you are now? It is not as stark as you're presenting


it. At some point, the objective has got to be to defeat Isis in both


Syria and Iraq. That is going to mean the Government coming forward


and asking permission for military action by British forces in Syria as


well as Iraq. We gave permission in Iraq and over the last year, that's


helped stabilise the position in Iraq and hopefully we are in the


process of stepping up the Iraqi army so it is capable of re-taking


the ground in Iraq. The position of Syria is more complicated because of


the presence of the different international actors there. And what


is necessary is to get a coherent international strategy which will


then produce a coherent military strategy that can defeat Isis in


Syria. At some point the Government is going to come forward and ask us


permission for British forces to be part of that coalition. Our view is


that should be done when we have a coherent international plan and that


has got to be the priority now. But are you also saying that the only


way to defeat Isis is at some stage to have military action? Bombing


against Isis in Syria, which Britain would be part of? The conventional


defeat of Isis is going to require a conventional air and land operation


to defeat Isis on the ground in both Syria and Iraq. Because there is no


ground capability ready at the minute to take on Isis in Syria. The


British military contribution is only going to be marginal. We don't


have anymore aircraft to deploy to the regionment they are already


fully engaged over Iraq so why draw us in as a combatan into Syria which


is not going to have any military utility when the real focus has got


to be on getting a diplomatic strategy going so the Iranians and


the Saudis get agreed on the strategy. They are difficult to do


and the Americans and the Russians have to be around the table too. The


British Government should be knocking heads together to get an


agreed strategy. By staying out of Syria for a prolonged period of time


and I take your point about making sure other things are in place


before there was any action, by Britain, doesn't it ensure that the


diplomatic negotiations and any settlement in the region is skewed


in favour of Russian and Iranian interests? Those interests are going


to have to be recognised. It doesn't mean that they have got it


compromise as well. There will be less pressure on them to do so and


the momentum will be with them? The dynamics have changed and that's the


reason we have talks in Vienna. The Iranians committed ground forces and


if there is no transition out of the civil war, they need an exit route


from this as much as anybody else. Do you accept the impact of your


report could be to actually push any decision by the Government to bring


that vote to the House of Commons way down the line? Well, I hope it


pushes it down the line and... We need to defeat Isis. That's going to


require a coherent international strategy. I want the Government to


come forward to ask permission to use British military forces when


there is a coherent international strategy. It is the absence of that


that means we can't get on and take on Isis. Where do you stand? Should


David Cameron come to the House of Commons in the near future asking


for permission? Not immediately after the Foreign Affairs Select


Committee has come out with the report saying this would not serve a


purpose. This would not be respectful to the House of Commons.


It is a highly respected committee. They are the experts in this field


in the House of Commons and if that's the view they have come to,


that will weigh heavily with members of Parliament. Right, it is a


numbers game though? We heard from our correspondent too and even the


Government has been fairly candid that they are not going to try for a


second vote in the House of Commons unless they have the numbers to


actually pass it. But it ought to be more than that. I agree with what


Crispin is saying. It is not that we are going to bomb sairia because we


don't like Assad. It has got to be we're going to do something that's


beneficial and will resolve the problem or help resolve the problem


and it should be done and brought to the House of Commons when the


Government can make a case that it will be really effective. Not just


because it thinks on a quiet Thursday afternoon enough people


might be in their constituencies to get it through. Presumably the


Government thinks it has got a case, it doesn't want to bring the vote to


the House because it won't win if it can't persuade enough Labour and


Tory MPs to vote in favour of it? Well if it has got a case, it hasn't


been making it strongly. We have got the report now saying something


different and the Government needs to counter that. I think, a lot of


MPs will make up their minds on the basis of the arguments that they are


not determined one way or another until they know what the balance of


argument is I think this Foreign Affairs Select Committee report will


be one of the most important Select Committee reports in this


Parliament. Right. Has the Russian involvement completely changed the


game here? In effect, yes because the Russians have now by their


commitment have made it clear that the Assad regime is not going to be


knocked over. It looked as though the Syrian Government was bleeding


to death. It was taking a long time about it and a lot of people were


getting killed in the process, but the Russian and Iranian commitment


has meant that in effect, the Assad regime is going to survive, that's a


reality on the ground and will continue to be so whilst the


Russians commit. But that commitment will be endless because the


opposition to the Assad regime is not going to go away and what's


required is for that opposition and the regime to come to a deal about


how the Syrian civil war is to end, what the transition arrangements are


to be and then those people who are always going to reject a deal which


will be the Islamist rejectionists, Isis and the Al-Qaeda associated


forces, they will then become the enemy of everybody and then we can


all then set-up a strategy to take rest control of those bits of Syria


that they hold from them. Just briefly, did you interview and


question ministers during this report? Yes, we took evidence from


the Foreign Secretary, yes. Just the Foreign Secretary? No, we took


evidence from the Foreign Secretary, we took evidence from the


Government's Middle East advisor and we had, and it is part of an on


going inquiry into the strategy against Isil. It is a narrow


question this. What the British House of Commons does about eight


British aeroplanes is a rather marginal issue when set against the


whole coalition operation and the conduct of international strategy.


Military involvement would be minimal, wouldn't it? Yes.


Sepp Now should the Government


re-introduce national tests That's the subject of a consultation


being announced today by the education secretary Nicky Morgan,


who wants to look at replacing the current system of informal


testing introduced under Labour. Let's have a listen to Nicky Morgan


speaking earlier. I want it make sure primary schools


and headteachers are being held to account in the right way. In a way


that's fair and rewards those who take on a challenge. New more


rigorous SATs are being introduced at the end of primary school and the


new reception baseline assessment has been introduced in primary


schools this year. But to be really confident that students are grossing


well through primary school, we will be looking at the assessment of


pupils at the age of seven to make sure it is robust and rigorous, as


it needs to be. We're joined now by the Schools


Minister, Nick Gibb. The NUT says you are turning schools


into exam factories making teachers teach to the tests. You will have


heard these criticisms before. But now you are going a step further to


formalise the tests. What do you say in response? There are already tests


at seven. We want to work with teachers to make sure they are as


rigorous and robust as possible to use the results to measure progress


the children make in the next four years up to key stage 2. Can you not


do that already? We can't because we don't collect the data from those


tests. That's one issue but we want to look at the detail with teachers,


it is about helping schools be held accountable in a fair way that


reflects the challenges they have with their intake, so they are held


accountable in a fair way. That's what we are trying to achieve. I


know with my own children, the tests at the moment are informal and at


the age of seven you don't want a formal testing on them, the burden,


you don't want them to get worried. Teachers complain time is spent,


taken out of the school day, to target these tests, instead of


teaching in the round? Well that's not the right approach. A friend of


mine was telling me their child came home from school a seven-year-old


and he asked how he had done in the test and he said "what tests? "


That's how good schools use the tests. It is important to identify


the children who are struggling. We want to ensure our schools system


are delivering excellence everywhere and every child is stretched to the


full potential and struggling children are helped if they are


falling behind. Is there evidence at the age of seven you can take that


sort of broad measure and predict how the child is going to do in


five, ten years' time, they do develop at ditch rates, don't they?


They do. It is not about the child at seven, assessing the child


itself. It is about measuring progress. You need a starting point.


The tests for seven-year-olds, woented be published on a


school-by-school basis. They won't reflect the future of the child. --


won't be published. It is a baseline for measuring progress. The fairest


way to hold schools to account. How supportives are teachers and


teaching unions? You have heard the comments from some of the unions. My


understaunding when I meet some teachers is they want the best for


every child. Do you think this will be the best way to do it? We want to


constult with teachers to make sure the way we develop these tests is


something we can use to help the teaching profession. Does it have


your support? Yes it does. You should understand. I'm also liking


of the Jess waits, give me a boy the a seven and I will give you a man


of the Jess waits, give me a boy the When they come out at 11, it


determines how they will When they come out at 11, it


GCSEs. If they don't get there at 11 If they do, half get


GCSEs. If they don't get there at 11 if they get beyond t 09% will


GCSEs. If they don't get there at 11 beyond T getting it right in the


early years is a key objective. If you find that teaches and schools


decide they don't really want to go down that route, at a time when


decide they don't really want to go wanted to give more autonomy to


schools, shouldn't they be the one who is decide? I think there


schools, shouldn't they be the one role for the state to hold schools


for account for the pay role for the state to hold schools


tax payers' money to ensure every child gets the best chance in life.


A legitimate role. We child gets the best chance in life.


the terms with child gets the best chance in life.


profession to make sure they do have their support. What about the


shortage of teachers? The statistics are showing quite serious shortages


in particular subjects. And it is going to take many years for those


gaps to be filled. Isn't that a much greater priority? It is a priority


fted dope. There are 455,000 teachers, the highest number of


teachers we have ever had. It is 1,000 more than we had in 2010. The


short fall when we have a growing population, a growing school


population, they show 57% recruitment short fall in design and


technology and a short fall in religious education. It goes on.


Less in music teachers but still short falls, even down to geography,


maths and English. That's much more seriously than formalising tests at


the age of seven, surely? The vacancy rate is under 1%. We don't


underestimate the challenge. When you have a strong and growing


economy, of course there is going to be demand for graduates leaving


universities but we are making progress. The numbers starting


teacher training this year is 3% up on last year. There are some


shortage subjects where we will struggle and we have for many years,


to recruit but not every new teacher coming into teaching comes through


the teacher training colleges. A lot of teachers starting are returners


coming back into schoo.s we are introducing generous bursaries for


physics and maths graduates and shortage be subjects like foreign


language and English. We are having an effective advertising campaign.


We are engaging in every possible policy... Well you sound like you


are. Briefly, Nicky Morgan is she working better with the blob as


Michael Gove called it? Well Nicky Morgan is determined to continue the


reform process to ensure high standards. We wantical educational


intelligence everywhere. She's continuing great work that has


happened over the last five years, and we are moving it further forward


for new test muty polycation tests. More homework for parents, I think.


Yesterday MPs voted to agree on the Government's Housing


and Planning Bill which will extend the right-to-buy


It was a promise made by the Conservatives during the general


election campaign, but didn't find favour on all sides of the house.


Could the Secretary of State explain how selling housing association


properties, subsidising that sale by selling council properties - half


the stock in the case of my local authority - reducing local authority


incomes to build properties by reducing rent and allowing


developers to get away without building any social homes, how does


that help the thousands of people in housing need in my constituency?


I'll come on to address the points that the


honourable gentlemen makes but I would say at this point, the reason


it helps, is we are requiring that there is a new home built for every


That will improve the housing stock in London.


Given that the Bill fails to include any legal commitment to replace


social homes that are sold under right-to-buy on a one-to-one basis,


will he accept that selling off valuable council homes to fund the


extension of right-to-buy, means we are losing two social homes to rent,


in return for one social home to buy, that's an overall loss.


The rate of additional stock that is being provided, in response to the


reinvigorated council right-to-buy, is running at over one-for-one


and the agreement that we have been able to reach with the housing


associations makes it very clear - and if the honourable lady hasn't


had a copy of that, I will make sure she has a copy -


that these homes will be replaced on at least a one-for-one basis.


The homes continue to be occupied, it is an additional home that is


So that was a flavour of yesterday's Commons debate.


Well we asked a government minister to come on


and talk about their plans, but were told none was available.


But worry not as we're joined by the Shadow Housing Minister John


Healey, and our guest of the day Jacob Rees-Mogg is still here.


John Healey more starter homes, powers to tackle rogue landlords and


powers to the planning system to allow more homes to be built. What


do you not like? Starter homes will be a non-starter for most families


and young people on organised incomes. So they will miss the very


group that the Conservatives say they are trying to help. The


clamp-down on rogue landlords is good as far as it goes, but it is


much too little to deal with many of the problems and pressures people


have in the private rented sector and we have 11 million people now


living in the private rented sector and no mention of course of them at


all in the Conservative manifesto. This is a Bill that needs to be


changed big style, it as goes through Parliament, if it is going


to do the job to help meet the wide housing need that we have in this


country for all types of homes. Right, I mean there is a serious


housing crisis in this country. All sides of the House agree with that.


Should the focus really be on selling off council homes, to fund


schemes like extending right-to-buy. You know, should it really be about


first-time buyers, helping them to buy houses of up to ?450,000, which


is out of the reach of most people? Selling council homes is a really


sensible thing to do. That the same people carry on living in those


properties. That you still have people living in the homes they


bought when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. The idea that the


home is taking out of the housing stock is fundamentally false. I


think it makes this debate misleading, it leads to


misunderstandings. The key is going to be building. Pricing, in all


markets, is set at the margin where, supply and demand do not meet. And


because supply is not meeting demand, house prices in this country


are very high. If we can build more houses, increase the supply to meet


the demand, then price also level off. We will come to the prices. But


let's go back to the issue about selling off council homes. Because


it is very controversial but it was something that previous Labour


governments also persued and thought was a good idea. The problem with


Jacob Rees-Mogg's argument is four out of ten every council houses sold


are not bought to live in but bought to let. And that's what happened.


The second big problem, over the last five years, the council homes


that have been sold, have not been replaced one-for-one as the


Government promised but nine sold for every one replaced. That problem


is likely to get worse, as we heard yesterday in the Commons. False sale


of council homes -- forced sale of council homes in order to pay for


the ex-tense of the right-to-buy for housing association tennants. It


will be a huge let down for the tennants who believe they have a


chance of their own home and a huge loss of affordable homes across the


country. Why shouldn't there be a legal requirement to replace or make


sure that any home lost is replaced by another affordable or council


home? I don't think it is necessarily. The Government has made


that commitment. On the house that is go into the private rented


sector... They haven't made a legal requirement. Hold on a second.


Should it be a legal requirement? They have not made that commitment.


I don't believe a legal requirement is necessary. The thing is, when


people let out their house in the private rented sector, a lot of that


may then be paid for through housing benefit, so there is support for


people who have homes and there are two different ways of doing it. One


is through private sector and housing benefit. The other is


through socially subsidised housing. Neither is intrisically morally


better. Both provide housing for people. One meets the immediate


needs of people, allows for greater moeblted and that's housing benefit.


The other provides greater security of tenure. And I don't think there


is a solution that is purely social housing or purely housing benefit. I


think the mix is about right. Well, if we don't want to talk which is


better morally, let's at least talk what is better value for the


taxpayer? It is clear if you invest public money and invest in new homes


and rent the them at a social housing level, you can recycle on


the benefits and stop the housing benefits bill soaring through the


roof as it has done over the last five years. It is much better value


for tennants and tax payers. It is not necessarily better value for


money because you are ignoring the sunk cost of the capital investment


which you would expect to get a return on. Governments have a choice


between day-to-day expenditure and capital expenditure but both have a


cost. Can I put to you there are many Tory MPs, enough, probably, to


get the legislation through, who are unhappy about the idea of councils


being forced to sell off their big expensive council house properties,


which isn't used to... Boys Johnson one.


. . Councils should not own high value properties. It is about


providing housing. It is not about owning properties. As Westminster


Council used to do a few hundred yards from here. Smith Square, they


were owned by the council. Multi-million pound houses, it is


crazy, of course they should be sold. What about the private sector,


what would you like to see done to help people who are paying expensive


rents, paying for it themselves, can't get council housing or some


sorts of subsidised housing. What should be done? At least three


things. First, you have to start from the point that our tennants in


the private rent sector have a very poor set of rights as consumers.


Fist of all, there ought to be a standard length of tenancy for three


years, then there ought to be a break on an agreement about the rent


rises through that period and there ought to be a clear obligation, with


ways of redress for those people who can't get their landlords to repair


the windows, deal with the mould and dotted proper job they had should be


doing if they are responsible landlords. Do the proper job. Do you


doing if they are responsible agree your Government is focussing


It is Her Majesty's Government, not much more on home-ownership.


It is Her Majesty's Government, not mine, home ownership should remain


the focus of Government policy, mine, home ownership should remain


on the private rented mine, home ownership should remain


have a choice between a flexible mine, home ownership should remain


that it does and a highly regulated one and we have tried this before


through the 60s and the 70s, one and we have tried this before


a very regulated, but small regulated sector. We have a large


unregulated one. regulated sector. We have a large


things that need to be adjusted in favour of the tenants, but if too


much is done, there won't be the properties. They have got their own


track record, five years of failure. Home ownership has fallen through


the floor since 2010. Jacob wasn't in the chamber yesterday, I heard


concern from Conservative in the chamber yesterday, I heard


about the Bill. About starter homes in the chamber yesterday, I heard


which would be beyond reach of many ordinary


which would be beyond reach of many to impose


even if local people have decided they don't want them this. Is


even if local people have decided Conservative Party and even the Tory


mayoral candidate for London, said Conservative Party and even the Tory


he couldn't support the Bill unless it was amended. It is a slow burn


he couldn't support the Bill unless problem which will go to 2020.


Now let's stick with talking about property, but move to


In his Autumn Statement last year George Osborne made a series


of reforms to the way property taxes work including a substantial


hike on the stamp duty paid on homes worth more ?1.5 million.


Some saw it as an attempt to frustrate Labour and the Lib Dems


And it's apparently having an effect on the sales of the UK's


I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk


Gordon Brown, in his first Budget as Chancellor, introducing


Stuck 2% on purposes of a property worth more than ?500,000.


Fast-forward 17 years and you have a Conservative Chancellor tinkering


It's time we fundamentally changed this badly-designed tax


George Osborne said his changes would cut stamp duty


for 98% of home buyers in last year's Autumn Statement.


But it came at the expense of those at the higher end


Properties worth more than ?1.5 million were in for a 12% tax bill.


So I've worked out you only need to spend about ?2.5 million - evidently


not that hard to do here in London - to be landed with a stamp duty bill


that's worth more than the entire amount I spent on my small flat.


Industry types say such high stamp duty bills have slowed


down the market at the higher end and that will affect the amount


We've looked at the tax take between January and July


of this year and yes, the tax take is down in the prime central London


boroughs of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster.


And I think looking at last year's figures,


we saw a slowdown in terms of the revenue being created in those


boroughs, but it is the rest of the country, so in essence the prime end


The tax take is slowing and you could argue to some extent the


The Chancellor's changes came months before the general election with


the backdrop of Labour's mansion tax proposals.


The decision may have been as much about politics as it was economics.


The Chancellor and his ministers will muse on the question of whether


it is worth losing ?2 or ?3 billion worth of stamp duty on houses at


that are very expensive in order to be off the hook of the embarrassment


of endless stories about how rich people are coming from overseas


If that stops, they might think it is a price worth paying.


The Treasury has downgraded its forecast for the amount


of revenue stamp duty will bring in in the last year of this Parliament,


And it could be a slightly quieter autumn for some estate agents.


Ellie there taking a look at the effect of the stamp tax changes.


So let's remind ourselves how stamp duty currently works.


In England, Wales and Northern Ireland you must


pay stamp duty land tax - stamp duty for short - if you buy a property.


Until last December, it charged successively higher rates


on the whole of the purchase price, a structure which saw it known


But in the 2014 Autumn Statement Chancellor George Osborne announced


a reform of stamp duty after criticising what he called a


Under the new staggered system, stamp duty only applied to


the amount of a property purchase price that falls


So up to ?125,000, you don't pay anything.


Then on the value between ?125,000 and ?250,000, you pay 2%.


Between ?250,000 and ?925,000, you pay 5%.


Between ?925,000 and ?1.5 million, you pay 10%.


And on the remaining amount, that's anything above ?1.5 million,


Got it? Most homebuyers benefited, but those who fell


If you spend ?2.1 million on a home, instead of the ?147,000 you paid


And the rates are lower in Scotland, where a Land and


Buildings Transaction Tax was introduced in April this year.


Well, we're joined now by the Guardian columnist


Owen Jones, and our guest of the day Jacob Rees Mogg is still here.


We're not letting him go. Why is it bad economics to charge people


buying houses over ?2 million higher rates of stamp duty? Because it is


reducing revenue for the Government. Taxes should be set to raise money


for the Government to afford to do what it needs to do. And if you set


rates that are so high that you don't get that revenue, that is


unwise, but on top of that, you're also reducing the flexibility of the


market. You want markets to have transactions. You want people to be


able to move. You actually want foreign billionaires to think it is


a good idea to buy property in London because they come here and


they spend money and we earn a huge amount of invincible earnings from


the spending of foreigners in the United Kingdom. So you make it


harder for people to buy properties, you discourage high end transactions


and you have an effect down the pyramid and you get less tax


revenues for it. So this maybe passable politics, but it is not


good economics. Do you think it is just about politics? This was George


Osborne trying to show he would be fairer when it came to stamp duty It


is probably in response to the so-called mansion tax, the gimmicky


policy Labour stole off the Lib Dems during the general election.


However, I mean, you know, I know you're trying to get me to defend


George Osborne against one of his backbenchers. I don't like stamp


duty. I would get rid of it and replace tax, it is a regressive tax


and it is bad for low and middle income tax with a land value tax, we


should tax the value of the land. It is an old idea, it goes back to the


well-known lefty, the economist Adam Smith in countries like Denmark, and


Hong Kong operate this, Pennsylvania in America, we could go on. It is a


better system, what is unfair at the moment is if you're rich and you


happen to live in an area which is desirable, you will accrue a huge


amount of wealth, not from your own efforts, but because you are living


in a desirable area. If you are a private renter of which there are 11


million, your rents are being hiked up. If you want a council house, you


are languishing on society house waiting list, there are five million


in that position now. The whole housing crisis, we need to build


housing and regulate the private rented sector and when it kms to


home ownership, unthis Government, it has fallen. There is 250,000


fewer homeowners. I think we can promote home ownership, build


council housing. It goes against the grain for Conservatives over home


ownership if there are fewer people owning their own homes. Most people,


I would put to you, watching this will say who cares whether rich


oligarchs are finding it more difficult to come and buy top end


homes here in London? That's a good thing. I completely understand that


rich oligarchs are not the most popular constituency to defend. Well


done for having a go. The question is whether by attacking them or


viewing them as being the opponent, you take decisions that are


economically disadvantageous down the housing pyramid and I think


stamp duty at 5% above ?250,000 is very high. It is a big burden for


people moving within family homes. I would argue from a more progressive


value-added tax. In term of foreign ownership, I don't know what the


figures are now, but a couple of years ago, it was estimated out out


of ten new build properties were being snapped up by foreign buyers,


they are often left vacant and empty at a time when lots of people can't


get a home and that's pushing up prices and making it unaffordable


for the average homebuyer because prices are unaffordable. I don't


agree with that. Which bit don't you agree? The reason the prices are


going up is because we are not building enough houses and there is


a lack of supply and we need to tackle that. A lot of existing


properties in London are owned by local people who are also finding it


harder to move because of this tax. But it is reducing revenue for the


exchequer, so the Government is limited in what it is able to do. I


don't support that. There are difficulties can capital taxation,


except where there is a transaction, there is no flow of income to pay


the tax from and therefore, you force people to make inefficient


decisions in terms of their allocation of capital. The whole


property speculation market led people to cash in on their assets


while twiddling their thumbs rather than through work? The assumption


that house prices will rise forever is not a correct one. We have seen


periods in the past when property prices collapsed. Has the Government


not fuelled that? The Government should not be in the business in


trying it get house prices to go up or down. We have seen that type of


demand price management from Governments in the past and it is a


very... Your Government, is doing that. For example, Right to Buy,


that gimmicky scheme is pushing up house prices and your Government is


catastrophicically failing to build housing in this country. Well, it is


getting better from the last Government as you know perfectly


well. Your Government has been in power for over five years. Planning


is a slow system, but it is getting there. The Government is doing... We


need to be building there. The Government is doing... We


year. The record was lamentable under Labour too The


year. The record was lamentable the economic model that your


chancellor has, we have an economic model based on inflated house prices


which leads to huge economic instability as we


which leads to huge economic past. Now what we should be doing is


giving councils the power to build housing, it will create jobs and


brick housing, it will create jobs and


as well as reduce the waiting lists housing, it will create jobs and


sector, let's look at home ownership. Looking at for example


stamp duty, replacing it with a progressive tax like land value tax.


You had the progressive tax like land value tax.


will make sure he doesn't. Now Labour's economic policy under


Jeremy Corbyn and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell is still a work


in progress, but they've set out some of the broad principles that


separate the party under its new Here's Mr Corbyn speaking at his


party conference back in September. The many with little or nothing, are


told they live in a global economy They must accept the place assigned


to them by competitive markets. By the way, isn't it really curious


that globalisation seems to always mean low wages for the poor people


but always used to justify massive payments for top chief executives


of global corporations? Our Labour Party came


into being more than a century ago, Well, one figure we recognise from


before the Corbyn era is the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury


under Gordon Brown, Liam Byrne, and today he's been offering his own


thoughts on where Labour's economic policy should go next, he's calling


it "entrepreneurial socialism". So, you have set out in a speech


what you have called an alternative economic strategy. What is your


message to the Labour Leadership? My first message is to the Labour


Party. Which is that we have to respect Jeremy's mandate and his


mantra, that the fight against inequality has to be centre stage in


our politics. Jeremy has set out during his leadership campaign, a


lot on which we agree. Tax Jews particulars welfare efficiency,


industrial policy, green strategy. There are a if you things, though --


tax justice. There are a few things that are risk


failure. I'm not a fan of quantitative easing. Printing money


when the economy is growing. Not a fan of wholesale nationalisation.


Those are the planks from which his economic policy would spring


forward. You will disagree with the basics? He has called for real


debate. After top-down politics for 20 years, it is a breath of fresh


air which is welcome. There is a different approach no rewriting


rules of some institutions like Bank of England, capital markets, science


poll circumstances National Curriculum and Social Security


system. I guess what I'm saying to my wivengt party, if you like, is we


have to get with the programme now, to my wing of the party. We have to


fight against the progress of equality. And if we have better


ideas, let's put them on the table and add to the debate. You have


better ideas, you think in the round than the current leadership. How are


you going to persuade them? Well, my arguing the corner. They have the


mandate. And in fact we have made from John McDonnell that he agrees


watch of what you say but you have to go in his direction? I think the


whole of the party has actually got to focus on the central ground that


Jeremy has mapped out, reversing the spiralling inequality spiralling the


country. But to be fair to Jeremy and John they have called for an


open debate and we have to get stuck into the debate on the terms Jeremy


has set out. Jeremy Corbyn declined an to speak at the CBI annual


conference. Do you think it would have been better to him and for


Labour to engage with business at that level? Well, look, I used to be


in business before I went into politics. I was was intren air


before I got elected in 2004. I do think it is a good idea to engage in


business for this reason - entrepreneur. I think there is a


widespread view in the business economy that inequality is hurting


growth and we need to work with those who want to change things. How


big a mistake was it for him not to g the Shadow Chancellor and Shadow


Business Secretary? Nobody wanted to speak to the CBI I think it would


have been better to go but I don't think it is a massive dee. You said


in your introe, our economic policy is a work in progress. I would get


across this message, there are lots of people in the business community


who want to cre create wealth and social justice. We need to embrace


with them H Are you worried, you are not, you have set out an alternative


and are getting stuck in. Some of the fears expressed by parliamentary


colleagues of your on this programme is that by not falling into line


with the new Labour leadership on a range of issues, you may be the sort


of candidate who could face a challenge of deselection when it


comes to the boundaries being redrawn? I don't worry about that. I


think we have to, in the parliamentary Parliament, listen to


the mandate Jeremy has been given and the man trashing the central


battle is the battle for ideas in reversing spiralling inequality and


we have to look at the best ideas possible. To express that unionivity


purpose, I have said we need to rewrite clause 4 our aims and values


to put the fight of Ian quality centre stage and to say to everybody


on the party but the country beyond, we are all on the same side. The


reason why both Jeremy Corbyn corn and I are in the Labour Party, he is


not a trot. Ian' not a Tory we share the unease about inequality and want


to do something about it. What do you say to Tristan Hunt to says the


Labour could turn into a sect. I say to everybody in the Labour Party. We


have to get stuck in. It is a battle of ideas. We can wint argument,


let's crack on. So So from economic socialism to


capitalism. Capitalism has succeeded


in making the poor poorer At least that's what most us


believe, according to a YouGov poll carried


out in seven countries including The bad news for capitalism


in the survey is that. There's an almost universal belief


that the world's biggest businesses have cheated and polluted


their way to success with barely 10% of respondents thinking big


businesses are "clean". Substantial majorities in all seven


countries surveyed think the poor The populations of Britain, Brazil,


Germany and America don't expect their children to be richer,


safer and healthier. But the good news is that for all of


the negativity towards capitalism, more people in all seven nations


believe that the free enterprise system is better at lifting people


out of poverty than government. There is


a widespread recognition that entrepreneurs and business leaders


are just as important to society. The overwhelming majorities


in all seven countries recognise that strong community and family


life underpin a strong economy. To discuss this, Tim Montgomerie


from The Times joins us. They are findings of a new report


published tomorrow. It is due to be launched by the Chancellor, George


Osborne. Welcome to the Daily Politics.


Broadly, has capitalism #235i8d? I don't think it has failed in the


fundamental sense. -- -- that is failed? Poverty around the world is


falling at an historically unprecedented rate but if you ask


people whether poverty or hunger rising, they think it is. So


capitalism although it is good at advertising soap powder, car and


computers is bad at selling itself. Its achievements are unknown. The


fact is most people in Britain, America and Germany think the poor


are getting poorer, and the reverse is the case, that shows capitalism


has a terrible PR problem even though it is a very successful


system. We have heard from Liam Byrne, he wants to concentrate


Labour's fight on fighting inequality. Isn't it true in


highly-developed country, there is an ever-widening gap between the


poorest and the top 1%? There is a mixed picture. Within some advanced


societies there is a widening gap between the top and the bottom. In


the world as a whole, we are becoming more equal because the


likes of China, India, Africa, are beginning to see their incomes


rising. Don't people want to focus on what is happening, where they


are? Of course. One of the opinion poll findings in this poll conducted


for us by YouGov asked - what are the big problems. What do you want


Government to focus on, fighting poverty, fighting unemployment or


reducing inequality and bringing the super-rich down to size. By


overwhelming majorities people want to focus on unemployment and


poverty. The danger for Liam Byrne and the Labour Party if they go down


this route, is they are going - while people worry about inequality,


it is not their priority. Do you think, from your perspective, that


actually the Tories should be doing more about trying to close the gap


between the top, the highest earners and those at the very bottom.


Absolutely not, no. I think you don't want to cut down the tall


poppies. You want them to grow and flourish. They spend the money that


helps lift everybody else up. Is there so much evidence that


trickle-down economics works that effectively for those at the lower


end of the pay scale? If you don't have an ct aive economy, the people


at the bottom are the one who is suffer more. This is the argument


the Chancellor has been making. The thing that hits the poorest of


society most is a failing economy. If you frighten off your wealth


creators your economy will fail. I don't think the Government should be


concerned about inequality. It should be concerned in factually as


Tim was saying, about issues relating to unemployment and people


living in Poff tie giving them the routes out of, that which I think


our welfare reforms have been doing. -- living in poverty. Was the last


government sane the good too close to big business, that hoard its


money, didn't spend, didn't invest to do much to help unemployment at


that particular time when it should have been? The Government didn't


seem to have any impact in that? In a word, yes. Absolutely too cloe.s


Michael Gove at an event at the Conservative Party Conference he


made a distinction, Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, made a


distinction between the deserving rich and undeserving rich. We had


this traditional distinction between the deserving poor and undeserving


poor. He talked for example, about bankers who during the good times


closed down the accounts of small business people who didn't pay on


time and were very tough on the little guy but when they ran into


trouble they were bailed out by the taxpayer. There are a lot of


business, the fossil fuel industry, the bankers who got too close to


Government. Government helps them out. There are lots of ladders on


the way up, but not enough snakes on the way down. If capitalism is to be


seen to be fair, the same rules that apply to the little guy, must apply


to the big guy. That's one of the approaches we are taking in this


institute manifesto, to ensure that capitalism works for everyone and


the rules are equal. At the moment that's in the how capitalism is


seen. We'll watch it closely. Thank you.


Now Halloween has been and gone and that can only mean one thing.


Not just plenty of discounted pumpkins in the supermarkets.


But it's time for the proper British tradition of Bonfire Night,


commemorating, of course, the failure of the Gunpowder Plot


in November 1605 to blow up the Houses of Parliament.


Let's have a look at how the popular CBBC programme,


It was the plot that seemed unthinkable.


So we are going to blow up King James and his entire family


Because you are a Catholic and I'm a Catholic and the King


He seems to think we are always plotting something.


It was the plot that sounded impossible.


So we are just supposed to roll 36 barrels of gun powder down the


Thames, sneak it into this rented cellar, wait for Parliament to open,


then I creep back in, light the fuse, run away and blow up the King


OK, just checking I had that down right.


It was the plot that surely would go wrong.


Well, joining us now, and I hope he's not left any barrels


of gunpowder deep under the Daily Politics studio, is Guy Fawkes.


Otherwise known as Neal Foster, the manager of the Birmingham Stage


Company and the director of Horrible Histories on tour.


I love the outfit. Welcome on to the dale comblivenlingts remind us why


it is such an important event and evening? -- welcome on to the daily


mrivenlingts We wanted to blow up the Parliament and king and


mrivenlingts We wanted to blow up members of the House of Lords


mrivenlingts We wanted to blow up wanted to destroy the elite, so we


could take over and wanted to destroy the elite, so we


could be in charge Why do you think it still resonates?


King James decided everyone Why do you think it still resonates?


to celebrate it, right up until late in Victorian times. Now we celebrate


it, in Victorian times. Now we celebrate


Robert Catesby. It should be burn Bob, rather than Guy. What do you


think of it historically Bob, rather than Guy. What do you


we commemorate so religiously to coin a phrase. As a Papist, I


we commemorate so religiously to some concerned. I'm glad the Pope


isn't burned in effigy so much as he used to be. . There is a theory that


it was organised by Robert Cecil, that he knew what was going on and


hence the plot was so ludicrous that it couldn't be successful that the


Government secret agents knew it was happening and wanted the


Government secret agents knew it was against James. The first who had


feelings of being more tolerant. His ministers didn't like that and


therefore if they had a great plot ministers didn't like that and


that went badly wrong and official commemorations to remind everyone of


how awful the Catholics were, that would be a great victory for the


establishment. There you have heard the aleasterntive few. Was it


ludicrous? Given what they did to me, all my friends hung, drawn and


quarter,ed insides were taken out and we were chopped into four


pieces. I think someone might have said - hang on, we want to tell the


truth. And then put the finger on Cecil. Where can we see you? We are


on tour all over the country. That's right until July. Will you be going


along, Jacob? Remember, remember, the 5th November. Gun powder treason


and plot. I see no reason why gun powder treason should ever be


forgot. I'm very impressed. You should win a prize just for doing


that. Thank you for coming on and making it colourful for us. #12k3w4r


There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was - what has Downing Street apparently "photo-shopped"


Downing Street didn't Photoshop anything. You are so loyal. Hackers


from an enemy power probably got into the Downing Street machine and


put a poppy on the Prime Minister. Well done. This is' it for today.


Thank you for being our guest of the day and to everybody else too. I


will be back tomorrow at 11.30am. Goodbye.


Download Subtitles