03/11/2015 Daily Politics

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.