09/11/2015 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Four government departments say they've agreed to cut

their day-to-day spending by an average of 30%.

That's pleased the Chancellor, George Osborne, ahead of his

But savings on welfare and at the home office could prove more

Our Adam's been out and about finding out what you guys

If you have a afford to have tattoos and smoke, why should you be

claiming benefits? The Prime Minister says he's deadly

serious about securing reform in Europe

and has no emotional attachment to He likes to cut a dash

and wants to be London Mayor. And that's not all,

we'll be talking to George Galloway about his plans to enter

the vintage clothing market. All that in the next hour

and with us for the duration Conservative, Mark Field,

and Labour's Peter Kyle. Now first today, let's talk

about Jeremy Corbyn and the Chief of the Defence Staff,

Sir Nicholas Houghton who yesterday exchanged a war of words, albeit

on different television programmes. First off, let's hear from

Sir Nicholas, who was interviewed on The whole thing about deterrence

rests on the credibility of its use. When people say you were never going

to use the deterrence, what I say is you use the deterrent every second

of every minute of every day, and the purpose of a deterrent is that

you don't have to use it because you successfully deterred. So no point

in spending billions and billions of pounds? Because then terrorists are

undermined. Well that didn't please

Jeremy Corybn over much, who responded by accusing the general

of breaching the constitutional principle that the military remains

politically neutral. Let's listen to the Labour Leader

speaking to Channel 4 News last I would gently say to him, with the

greatest of respect, we live in a democracy where politicians are

elected to Parliament in order to take political decisions. The Armed

Forces, obviously, must advise, and obviously must put the point of view

across, and obviously they have a great deal of access to the

Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister and every other MP

and opposition members. I do not think it is helpful for them to

start making political comments of a partisan and party political nature.

And with us now former Labour Security Minister,

First of all, is Jeremy Corbyn right? Did a Sir Nicholas Houghton

breach his constitutional duty when he said he would be worried if

Jeremy Corbyn's antinuclear views were translated into power? I think

he was bluffed into seeing a little bit more about deterrence theory

then he meant to say. I don't think he had any intention at all of

saying that Jeremy Corbyn will do this and that is wrong and therefore

he is not happy about them. I think he was gently bluffed into saying

more than he should have done and at the end of it, he probably did say

more than he should have done in a political sense. So he did cross

that line? I think so but just. Let's say that if Jimmy had not said

anything about it, it would have faded away without that much notice.

I might be wrong. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn overreacted by saying

that he would be writing to him and he was outraged by the breach? I

think sometimes it is better to let some things run. Some things need to

be reacted too but he clearly made the decision that he feels very

strongly on this issue. On the substance, did you agree with Sir

Nicholas Houghton that refusing to launch nuclear weapons, not press

the button is the fact, undermining the deterrence? Deterrence, clearly

it means that you are saying that if you do some pity me, I will do

something back to you. Whilst I have admiration for individuals who are

pacifists, I do not believe that is the way to run a country. What do

you say to that, a lot of people would agree with that. If you say

you will not press the button, you have undermined the deterrence that

cost a lot of money. The more important question is the democratic

question. It is all very well having the discussion about deterrence and

I know there is more or less a convention that senior military

figures do not tend to express their personal views on things, but he did

go well beyond that and he did give the impression that Jeremy Corbyn

was elected as Brown and Mr, if he was, and the word power must

presumably refer to that, that he would have concerns. Jeremy Corbyn

would only be elected as Prime Minister if the British people had

voted in an election for him and his policies. I think it is absolutely

inappropriate and that a senior military figure should put that

question mark over a democratic decision by the British people. The

question, what is absolutely right is, when a political party has been

voted in, the job of the military, even if they do not like what the

government is doing, is to do the best they can with a bad job. And

you try to make sure that you can defend and look after the people of

the nation and come up against any unforeseen circumstances with what

you have got. And you don't say, I'm not going to do this because I don't

like this particular party. That is absolutely right. And that has

always been a tenet of military forces. Whoever is in power, they

have been elected and they are the government and we are not a military

dictatorship. The military are subordinate to government and they

do as they are told. That aspect is absolutely right. Also, because Sir

Nicholas Houghton is such a senior figure, that could give the

impression that all military think that Trident, and replacing the

nuclear deterrent, is a good idea, but in actual fact... Presumably

they do? There are certainly some in the military, and some of the more

senior armoury officers -- army officers who don't like Trident. And

there is a debate about that. Probably the majority do like it and

feel that it should be there. They don't like it, but they feel it

should be there. And I have to say, I share that view. I have been

deeply involved in the nuclear issue for 30 years. These arguments which

the Labour Party have gone through, I have been through them so many

times and I am convinced that disarmament is not our good idea.

Would you resign that the Labour whip if they took the oath? It is

highly likely that I would resign if they decided that we would become

unilateral. Because I am not a member of the military serving as an

officer so I have that luxury. But the military should get on with it,

and I think they will. My late father was in the Army added to the

purist view that he was there to fight for Queen and country and he

never even voted in the general election although we had robust

conservative views. I think there is a danger and it would be wrong to

overstate this, I think he went slightly over the line to say that

it was deservedly about Jeremy Corbyn. I think one of the strengths

of the armed services, one of the reasons that along with the

monarchy, it retains such a great public support, is that it is seen

as being above politics. It needs to make sure it is that at all times.

My frustration with this debate is we are talking about process and not

about the issues. But process is quite important. It interesting,

because Lord West explained frustration about someone stepping

over the line but now we are having a debate about you potentially

resigning the web. As a new MP, instinctively inclined to vote for

renewal, I am open to debate on both sides and I want to listen to all

the arguments, sides and I want to listen to all

the range of opinions in the military. Jeremy has come into power

the range of opinions in the and he will not be Prime Minister

for another four and he will not be Prime Minister for another,. -- four

and a half years. Except we have MPs who say that Labour will not have a

settled view by that point. Kier Starmer said

settled view by that point. Kier there could be a timing issue and

that is the problem when there could be a timing issue and

votes because Labour has not agreed. Which is why we need to get to the

issues. There are a range of issues in the

issues. There are a range of issues once debate. Let's have a

issues. There are a range of issues learn from it. On that basis,

issues. There are a range of issues think that Jeremy Corbyn could be

persuaded to think that Jeremy Corbyn could be

Party as a whole. Murray eagles has said that they are going

Party as a whole. Murray eagles has debate in the Labour Party and that

will start. But the Shadow Home Secretary is disagreeing with the

Labour Party. Do you think you could change is mind? We have seen it

before. The Lib Dems found out that when you never think you are going

to be in power, you can say all sorts of nonsense. I am afraid that

Jeremy, before he was elected, he was in that arena. Now you suddenly

find you have got to actually do real things, and it is much harder.

You have to focus. The Wilson government said that they were going

to scrap the deterrent when they came into power, and when they got

there, they had all the briefings and looked at it and they changed

their mind. I think Jeremy Corbyn is the sort of chap who will have a

debate and listen to it. I think there is a possibility we might

change our mind. His electorate would not like to think that if they

were all killed, and the children would not like to think that if they

looking after them said he would turn the other cheek. I have been so

closely involved in this for so long... And are encroached

positions. But it goes beyond deterrence. Alan has touched on

this, because there is the issue of a world where we are not able to

spend endless amounts on defence, and the notion of ring fencing money

spend endless amounts on defence, that would otherwise go to Trident

to go to conventional warfare, that is part of the argument. I am with

you. It want, is part of the argument. I am with

we will be talking about that in a moment. Could this split the Labour

Party? If we have the issue where the Shadow Defence Secretary says he

agrees with Sir Nicholas Houghton rather than Jeremy Corbyn, is that a

risk? Yes, but there are lots of risks that could split the party.

Could it become your Europe? Now, because I think the issue will be

settled by next summer. I think the issue will move forward and the

party will move on. Lastly, do you think that Jeremy Corbyn's

unilateralism mind is not changed, would make him unfit to to be Prime

Minister? I think you could still be Prime Minister but it would be

completely the wrong thing to do and I think it would be more dangerous

for our people and our country. It would be up to the country to

decide, wouldn't it? Thank you both. what is the House

of Commons due to debate this week? Is it moving the UK parliament to

Strasbourg whilst restoration work is carried out on the Palace

of Westminster? Is it selling off Whitehall to build

new homes. Or is it putting a pop up bar in

the House of Lords? At the end of the show one

of our guests, may just give us With the Spending Review just over

a couple of weeks away these are Some conscientious ministers have

already handed in their work, some wayward types appear to be

leaving it to the last minute. George Osborne is demanding savings

on day-to-day spending of between 25% and 40% by the end

of this Parliament to help remove Some lucky ministers, including

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, International Development Secretary

Justine Greening and Health's Jeremy Hunt, have some or all of

their departments protected, meaning This morning the Chancellor has

announced who is in his good books, Transport's Patrick McLoughlin,

Environment Secretary Liz Truss and Greg Clarke from Communities and

Local Government are the teachers pets as they,

along with the Treasury, have worked Some ministers however have

been less forthcoming. Home Secretary Theresa May is

holding out, there are reports she's particularly concerned

about cuts to police numbers. It's believed Mr Osborne is keen to

use Mr Duncan Smith's budget to find the ?4 billion of savings that he

would have made with tax credits. The Work and Pensions Secretary is

said to be unhappy about the plans and there are reports

of furious rows behind the scenes. One thing this morning we have

learnt will be in the Spending Review is the building

of nine new prisons at a cost of more than ?1 billion, although

the Ministry of Justice hope it Speaking earlier,

George Osborne said this. Why he believed further savings were

necessary. We are still spending too much. We are set to borrow more than

?70 billion this year, added to our current mountain of debt, currently

over ?1.5 trillion. That national debt reached 80% of our national

income this year. While that is high, our economic security is in

danger. No one knows what the next economic crisis to hit our world

will be or when it will come. But we know we haven't abolished boom and

bust. We know we must prepare for whatever the world throws at us. We

know that if we don't control spending, we run the risk of higher

mortgage rates and a loss of confidence in our economy. And we

know for certain that will lead to job losses, businesses closing down,

homes being repossessed and the livelihoods of working people

destroyed. And with us now is Paul Johnson from

the Institute of Fiscal Studies. Able, The savings that we have heard

about today is about day-to-day spending, what we call current

spending, is it as big a deal as George Osborne says? The amount he

has found is small. He is not looking at most of the transport

budget, just the day-to-day spending and most of transport is capital

spending. He is not even looking at most of local government spending.

It is just a bit of what the department spends. The Treasury is

small. The amount of billions he has found is not many. But it is an

indication of scale we would expect for the rest of the Parliament. He

is making a big show of these departments that have found the

spending, but in a way it is the low hanging fruit of the departments. It

is the little bits of departments. He has not settled with transport,

because the big bit is capital and he has not settled with communities

and local government, this is is not the main local government grant and

does not tell us what total spending will be. A lot is paid for by

Council Tax and business rates. George Osborne's argument is with

debt at 80% of national income, the government needs to prepare for

another crash. Is 80% too large a proportion? It is more than it has

been at any time since the mid 1960s. So that is large in that

perspective. If you look back to the Second World War we were over 200%

of national income. The question is what are the risks that are

associated with going into the 2020s with a debt at 80% if we had another

big crash, that would take it up to 120% and is that too much or not? As

ever with these things, there is a balance of risks. The risk he is

taking is big cuts in spending and the risk by not taking it the

potential for the trouble that could be caused by another recession with

80% as debt. If you take those cuts into account, what would be the dept

made to national debt? What we are looking at in getting to 2020 with a

balanced budget or a surplus f you maintain, the debt comes down

relatively quickly f the economy grows 2 or 3% a year. But it still

above where it was before the recession. In the Financial Times it

is reported there could be some wriggle room because of continued

low interest rates that may extend into next year and 2017. How much

does that give the Chancellor to play with? Difficult to sell now, we

will wait for what the Office of Budget Responsibility says. He has

had this benefit a couple of times in the past. A couple of years ago

interest rates and inflation expectations were down. And looking

forward the shocks won't always be in this direction. The low interest

rate cuts both ways. We have had seven and half years and they don't

need to raise much to have an impact on the debt pile. I think George

Osborne is right, we need to actress this and there are -- address this

and the economic clouds are darkening. . It is good to talk

about debt. Because debt has risen And has risen despite the government

boasting about bringing down the deficit in part. Debt has not come

down. No, the deficit means you're adding to the debt each year. So the

question even if you make the cuts, how much of a dent would it ma I can

to the national debt. The issue is the confidence of the capital

markets, because it has been one of the successes that George Osborne

can point to compared to the other options that he has had the

confidence of the markets and we have a plan and we are working on

that plan. Why not bank that confidence in the capital markets if

you like and use it to invest? Why include the capital part of the

budget and not as John Macdonald said, use some of that to invest to

grow the economy. I would watch what will happen on 25th November at the

autumn review. I suspect there may be not on a huge scale, but elements

of that there. And we have had a situation that actually the

transport budget, the day-to-day budget, is neither here nor there,

most of it is large long lasting projects. Do you think it wrong to

have that fiscal charter which binds the government to balance the books

and keep a surplus on both the budgets. No, it is the rights thing

to do. Partly because of the confidence of markets and to make it

clear we have a plan, OK, there will be some pragmatic flexibility in the

plan from year-to-year. That has happened in the last government and

will happen. The flexibility is towards the end of electoral cycle

and that is what we have seen. It is interesting that each election that

the Tories have Bon, have been done on an ideological platform but they

come back to the darling plan by the end of the government. How would

Labour cut the deficit. The thing about the dech sit is about --

deficit is aimed for a balanced budget. How would you cut the

deficit. John Macdonald said he would raise taxes. I

deficit. John Macdonald said he paying down the debt

deficit. John Macdonald said he growing and has been growing. Yes,

but getting growing growing and has been growing. Yes,

been bumping along the bottom... Both the last three years...

Productivity is comes from a Both the last three years...

specific part of the economy in the city of London. We don't

specific part of the economy in the industrial platform or growth.

specific part of the economy in the services as a whole. The

of England, people who are unemployed are against it, small

businesses, we have favs and high start ups, but we don't have the

growth and that is where the real growth needs to come from. Should

the money if there is wriggle room be used to lessen the impact of the

cuts? It will be use fodder that. -- used for that. It will be utilised

and we will touch on the tax credit. You think that is right. What about

the building of prisons. Nine new You think that is right. What about

prisons. In fairness part of that will

central... Something like Pentonville you will build luxury

flats on the site and relocate it and a lot of that will be

investment, but will wash its face. We need to renew the physical side

of Prison Service and to invest in the social side and make sure that

we invest more in breaking the cycle of crime that goes on within

prisons. You're going to of crime that goes on within

us. What to the votersers think about what we spend on benefits. If

only there was a way to find out. Well here is Adam. Everyone loves a

discussion about the welfare state on the way to work. So are we

spending too much on on the way to work. So are we

benefits. A lot of people who are destitute. So too little. Grab a

green ball. They have enough for us here, but it is so many that comes

from abroad. I don't think that is enough. It spreads for too many

people. If you can afford tattoos and smoke or things like that, why

should you be claiming benefits? What would you increase? Maybe the

tax credits. Controversial. People are suffering. I want you to picture

the benefits bill. It is ?202 billion a year. Is that too much? No

it is too little. How much more would you spend? Probably about

another half again. Really? Yes, why not? I get all benefits, DLA and

housing benefit and I have applied for extra benefit. Hopefully I will

get that. Your benefits could be going up. Yes, why not. Grab a ball

then. Pop it in. She had taken it and run away. You have to put it in

the box. It is not a benefit! You put that in very forcefully. I

believe strongly. I why do you think we spend too much? Because I think

we can't afford it for a start. There are too many other things that

we need to spend it on. I think we have fallen into a culture of all

rights and no responsibilities. Nobody has a right to endless free

living. Well people don't like discussing the welfare state on the

way to work. We have an embarrassing meagre number of balls. I think this

side's slightly in the lead though. Not much in it. How much of a hit do

you think the welfare budget is going to have to take? Or will have

to take? That is really largely been announced. The Chancellor announced

12 billion of cuts in July. This is what causing him problems, for

billion was to come from tax credit cut and it looks like there will be

some rowing back from that as a result of vote in the House of

Lords. But the 12 billion was in the manifesto and what is being

delivered is less. We are aiming at 2020 and we are not sure if we will

get the first four billion next year. Should they cut more from the

welfare budget? You have got to realise the politics is the art of

possible and what happened with the tax credit changes is a sign it will

be difficult to get through not just the House of Lords, but the House of

Commons. I have been right in favour of what we are doing on tax credits.

It is one of the most pernicious elements of the Brown regime. It is

negative income tax. Hang on. No, what it was you have to remember why

we had tax credits, was that we brought in the minimum wage and your

party opposed it. We needed to find a way, we couldn't have brought in

the living wage and we needed to get the supplement. Minimum wage is a

maximum wage. Don't talk over each other. Where I will extend an olive

branch was to say we should have Tran sixed earlier and we --

transitioned earlier we should have transitioned from a tax credits to

increasing the minimum wage. Your party would have opposed it. We

should have made that transition in government. But the problem is the

transition now, you're going to cut tax credits and not supplement it

with the so-called living wage for another three and a half or four

years. So let's see what happens when George Osborne makes his

statement. In the battle between George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith

you said you think he was doing the right thing with tax credits, whose

side are you on if Iain Duncan Smith digs his heel in. That is up to

them. They have got to work it out. Whose side are you on? I think we

have got the welfare budget is too high and we need, because I think

the economic clouds are darkening and we need to address this and

particularly the whole tax credits. There is a irony in fairness one of

reasons we have had the jobs miracle, because we have had tax

credit and subsidised employment and keep employment levels up. Now you

want the pull the rug in under people? Now we want to eget

employers to realised a minimum wage shouldn't be a maximum wage.

Although put the mood box to one side that said it was too much. The

public tend to be on the side of cutting the welfare bill. Saying it

is too expensive. The public want value for money and sensitive tot

itive to the fact that their money is hard earn and they want the

Government to spend the money wisely. But the public are sensitive

to fairness and want to make sure that people in need of support get

the support and that is why the mood box shows a more balanced view than

two years ago. After this tax credit cuts problem, are you worried that

George Osborne has lost his credibility? No it is a short-term

thing. The issue is none of the options for getting out of this will

be easy. He has made it clear that we are not going to ignore the House

of Lords. I would be happy to support him continuing with this

policy. My instinct is what might happen is that we cannot, this

element of policy and bring in the changes for any new applicants. The

truth that does leave a gap in what we are trying to achieve this

getting the budget down. It only needs a another 0.2% growth and that

can be bridged. What are the options in terms of tweaking the tax credits

or putting money in, are those the things that are on offer to George

Osborne? The trust in long-term savings, then

just doing this for new applicants, or as you roll onto Universal

Credit, don't change the system that was cut. The system that was cut.

There were big. You could do nothing to the current system. And then once

Universal Credit is in place, you have made the savings. But it is

important to be clear that there is an issue here for the Chancellor,

because he set himself a welfare cap for next year. Does the tax credit

changes for 2016, he will likely bust the welfare cap, which means he

will have to go back to back to Parliament to ask them to give him

more money to spend on welfare, which of course he can do, but it

might be a little bit embarrassing because there are constraints year.

There is a constraint for 2016 and he is also got a overall budget

constraint for 2020. And meeting the latter might be easier than meeting

the former. Thank you. The Prime Minister has told the CBI

annual conference that he is "deadly serious" about securing

reform in Europe and has "no emotional attachment" to the

institutions of the EU. In a speech this morning,

Mr Cameron said he wasn't going to pretend for a second that Britain

couldn't survive outside the EU and he stressed

that the key goal was to secure Let's listen to what the PM had

to say just a little earlier. The argument isn't whether Britain

could survive outside the EU, of course it could. The argument is how

are we going to be best off. That is the argument that I hope we're going

to be making together after this successful negotiation. When it

comes to the crucial issues, our prosperity, our national security,

of course we can prosperity, our national security,

those things outside the EU, and how we make ourselves more

Joining me now is the UKIP MP Douglas Carswell.

Welcome back to the Daily Politics. Mark, recent reports suggest the

Prime Minister is preparing to watered-down plans to ban EU

migrants from claiming in work benefits for four years. Would you

like him to stick to the plan of four years? I would like him to put

this forward but inevitably this is going to be a negotiation that will

have to take place. The important thing about all of the reforms, the

EU is clearly a body that needs reform. I am under no illusions

about that. I don't think it is a perfect institution at all. However,

we need to recognise that this is a down payment of reform. I hope we

will get a package to be put to the electorate at some point in the next

year or so but however, the truth is this has got to be not a destination

but a process. I think in years to come, reform is something we need to

look at and take EU members with an attorney. If like many of the other

things on the shopping list, although we don't know the detail,

David Cameron has been advised by civil senior servants that they are

not achievable. As you say, it is a journey but will that be enough to

convince people, on trust, an something happening down the line,

that we might actually lay treble -- actually get something as important

as reforming benefits? I think that is an important part of it. But with

regards to the broader competitive agenda, making sure that Britain is

capable and protected outside the euro zone, I think the important

thing is that there is a package that David Cameron comes back with,

not just for UK exceptionalism but for the reforms that needs to happen

in the EU as a whole. Also, a programme of reform that will extend

beyond the referendum. David Cameron says that a vote to leave the EU is

not without risk. Did you accept that? The risky option would be to

say that we would remain part of a group of countries

say that we would remain part of a control. The EU cannot deal

say that we would remain part of a huge economic and demographic and

technological changes that are happening around the world.

technological changes that are have lost control of the agenda.

They cannot control currency or borders. The risky option would be

to show our -- through our lot in with a feeling project. We need to

take back control. But do you with a feeling project. We need to

the point that it is not without risk to leave the EU? I think

the point that it is not without less risky option is leave the EU.

Is the more honest argument from the banister, as he says it is not about

whether the UK can survive outside, because he accept that we can, but

it is about which option will make the UK more prosperous and secure,

so there is a more honest argument. If he was going to be honest he

would be telling us that he is planning on having this in June and

he's not going to get any significant new deal. I have to say,

if there is honesty, I don't think the CBI is the forum to discuss it,

given that they have been releasing some dodgy bowling. Will he

presented as a big win? I think he will be candid about it and I think

that they are looking at the other options. What are they? Can we see a

list of the reforms? We are going to have a letter tomorrow and it will

not be a bullet pointed list but it will look at the areas in which we

are looking to continue to negotiate. I have been struck by

David Cameron and Philip Hammond, because they have been out in many

of the European capitals over the last few months, looking to build an

alliance on to make this sort of reform. Everyone recognises that the

EU needs these reforms. You have to look at the other options, you are

right. The notion that we can restate the Commonwealth, I mean,

the Indians laugh at the facility, how facile that prospect is.

Australia, New Zealand, they see themselves as Asian nations. What

has happened in Canada, we might be able to cut a deal with Stephen

Harper but not Trudeau. I think it is perfectly possible for us to...

Ascot the Norwegians and the Swiss. They trade outside the EU, and

profitably. But the officials do not because they negotiate these

conditions as a condition of joining. The problem you have is

that the European Union you describe is unrecognisable to the millions of

people... Let me finish. It is unrecognisable to the millions who

visit Europe in the last couple of months. You have described something

that is just destitute. Morally, economically and socially. This is a

hyperbole... It is their to say that the Labour Party's position is to

stay in, whatever the report. But also, the focus on the rapport. It

comes down to the fact that people in this country are supportive of

the European Union. -- focus on the reform. We will have a referendum

and we will see. We don't want to stay in at any price... But let's

see what the voters say. We were famously in the same lobby in 2011,

voting in favour of the referendum. I think the public needs to have a

say. We want the Europeans to stop meddling in details of the country,

and focus on the big issues. Well David Cameron was speaking

at the CBI conference in Their Director General,

John Cridland joins us now. Welcome to the programme. The Prime

Minister argues that a vote to leave the EU is not risk-free but he rules

nothing out of the cannot secure necessary reform. Do you rule

nothing out? I am encouraged that the Prime Minister is serious about

that reform and that process is what we will need to convince British

business and the public that Europe is the way forward. For me, reform

is everything and we have heard from my own Prime Minister, committing to

a strong reform agenda, and from the tee shot, the Minister of Ireland,

how important it is that he helps Britain support that reform because

Ireland wants Britain to be in. Most Britons want to stay in a reformed

EU. That is the issue of the day. But if the majority of your members

vote to leave, eight out of ten firms who attended the July meeting

of the CBI Presidents committee are not actually allowed to support any

political campaigning, so whose views do you represent? I represent

the views of 190,000 businesses, which through our 140 trade

associations, we speak for, employing 7 million workers. And the

large majority of those want to remain in a reformed EU, not the EU

of the status quo. And I am always happy to debate on the issues, but

they don't seem to want to debate on the issues. They just want to debate

on bits of process. John Criddle and saying that the majority of his

members want to stay within the EU. -- Tabak. These CBI polls measure

voter opinion in the way that Volkswagen measure emissions. They

are inherently dodgy. They claim that eight out of ten... They have

not actually said that, Douglas Carswell. Let's look at objective

assessment. Ernst Young, the Federation of Small Businesses,

business for Britain, they have produced calling data that produces

the business -- that shows that business is divided. Douglas

Carswell says dodgy, in terms of the way you do polling. I can speak with

a strong mandate from my members, and I spent five years in this job.

I don't think I would be doing this job if I was not speaking for the

voice of British business. There are more than 1000 small and medium-size

businesses in the room behind me and they have listened patiently and

politely to political speakers who have debated this issue this

morning. Of course, there are a variety of views and the more

international business, the more likely they are to see the upside to

Europe. The more domestic the business, the more likely they are

to see the downside. So you would expect a different business

organisations with different membership profiles to come up with

different results. Let's look at these pictures because as the Prime

Minister was speaking, some protesters unfurled a banner which

said, CBI, the voice of Brussels. I think you can see that they are.

They clearly do not think that you would never recommend to leave the

EU. Whatever happens. Reform or not. Are they right to? The word two

demonstrators and there were 1000 other people in the room. The

demonstrators were politely heard, as I hope my views are. But you have

not answered my question, and you said that you desperately want

reform. If there is no substantial of reform, would you recommend

voters leave to -- vote to leave the EU? I am confident that there will

be reform but we will take that reform package back to CBI members

and ask them for a renewed mandate. We are not unconditional on being in

the EU, we want a reform package. If we get it, we will ask our members

whether they are satisfied with it. Welcome to democracy. That is clear.

They are going to ask the members again. Leaked members from the --

minutes from the board meeting show that they are in at any price. They

are possessed about promoting the EU. They wanted Britain to join the

euro a decade ago and they wanted us to join the ERM in the 1980s. They

were wrong then and they are wrong now. I will come back to you in a

moment, John Cridland. I never believed in joining the euro. I am

the Director General of the CBI and I speak for the organisation. The

CBI is not in favour of joining the euro. What we want to do -- what you

seem to want to do is talk over other people. Don't govern him,

because we want to hear everybody. The question John Cridland said is

even if the leadership of the CBI site that they would advocate to

stay in, they are going to give their members a chance to have their

say and judgment. Surely that enough? I think it is good that they

will ask the members, but the poll that they have produced, showing

that eight out of ten businesses support being in the EU is

inherently dodgy. I think we have to question whether or not the

leadership of the CBI generally reflects business opinion. There are

other voices out there that have produced objective data that shows

the business is divided. Companies that can afford to hire lobbyists in

Brussels might like the system but others that cannot, organisations

that are not big banks and lobbies, might recognise that actually the

single market... The CBI exists to consult its members and to speak for

its members. The idea that you want to... There are other organisations.

I am sitting here with two bastions of conservatism and I am pretty

proud that I am the only person to let finish a around here. 1-0 for

public education. It is right that the CBI listens and represents its

members. That is the right process to go through and I am proud that

they are doing it. They need to speak with a voice and listen and

consult. John does not exist to tell his members what to think, he exists

to listen to them and speak for them. Douglas Carswell is obsessed

with polling and the process of polling. Let's stick to the issue

and let him speak for his members. But shouldn't they be transparent,

as transparent as possible about the broad views of business?

Absolutely. And John was trying to speak but he was spoken over the top

of. You have made that point. As a pushy grammar schoolboy, I have to

say... The difficulty of your stands, Douglas, you started by

single thing was a sham and we would get no reform. We're going to get

reform but you will say that is nothing like enough. You are going

to say it is smoke and mirrors, come the referendum. I think we are going

to get a package here. I hope there will be some exceptions, that we

will be able to get a good deal for Britain but also, we all know that

this institution does require reform. We are members of lots of

institutions, like the UN, which disappoints us from time to time. We

are members of NATO and various elements of that disappoint us. It

does not mean we walk out, we want to play an ongoing role and try to

make it better. John Cridland, you're stepping down

and on our membership of the EU, are you at your successor at one? Yes.

We want Europe to do more of what it does well and less of what it does

badly. British business wants a better deal from Europe and Caroline

will continue to represent the views of broad mass of business. Would you

be a dpan of having the referendum in June? -- fan. I want to have the

referendum when we have the reform package and so the public can make

an informed choice. Thank you. Next June, you would be in favour of next

June? I I want it as soon as possible. We are committed to having

reform and it shouldn't be rushed. But for certainty let's get this

done and But for certainty let's get this

it is conducted honestly with honest polling.

Now how's the political calendar shaping up this week?

the Scottish Parliament, will complete its stages in the Commons

And tomorrow the Trade Union Bill should also complete its final

stages in the Commons before MPS pack up for a short recess.

On Wednesday the European Union will hold

And on Thursday Britain plays host to the Prime Minister of India,

The first visit by an Indian Prime Minister for over ten years.

Let's talk now to Kevin Maguire from the Mirror and Sam Coates

There may are outside st houses of Parliament. The spending review, how

tricky is this row going to be an Iain Duncan Smith and George

Osborne. Will Iain Duncan Smith win or will he be forced to resign? If I

knew that, I would be a rich man. But it is a live and quite personal

row between these two. At stake is Iain Duncan Smith's flagship

project, universal credit to help people to earn more in work. George

Osborne has come into try and raid it and George Osborne wants between

one and two billion out of project in order to pay for what was a mess

up with tax credits after the House of Lords rejected the plans to cut

about a thousand pounds from three million low paid households. I

wouldn't expect Iain Duncan Smith to go without quite a fight. Whether he

encourages George Osborne to back down, or points him in another

direction of his budget for savings, we are still waiting to find out.

They have got two weeks. There is in spending review times that is a long

time. But it is one of most fraught bits of the review. Followed by

Theresa May protecting cuts to police. Is that again going to be

the battle symbolising for those departments that are unprotected?

The Home Office is in a different place, we are not hearing the

squeals of outrage you do from people around Iain Duncan Smith.

Theresa May is a canny operator and knows the point that they cut police

funding in the last Parliament and yet crime went down and not up. So

there is little less squeamishness there about spending. There will be

spending for intelligence agencies that will continue to go up. Part of

that comes under the Home Office. It will be a mixed picture. But that I

don't think feel like it is at the heart of a big battle. Now Jeremy

Corbyn and Trident. It is difficult, he is outraged by what he calls a

constitutional breach by Nicholas Houghton, but his shadow Defence

Secretary seems to agree with the chief of defence. She did initially,

not realising that Jeremy Corbyn would make a statement and Maria

Eagle is all for Trident, which ever you want, he Jeremy Corbyn, isn't

and Downing Street was clear they thought that Nicholas Houghton was

entitled to say what he said, I suspect because they did because

when another defence staff criticised the military strategy,

David Cameron said I will do the talking, you do the fighting. ? A

democracy he should not intervene. That is an error on his part and the

Conservatives have criticised him and the principle of him intervening

and I suspect the SNP are in the same boat and some Labour people who

are for renewing Trident, but they will think it is wrong that the head

of armed forces is intervening. What about the timings, because if as we

were talking, there isn't a settled position on the Labour side, on

Trident, one way or the other, before some key votes, that is going

to be difficult? Is Yes Labour are in a mess on this. Jeremy Corbyn is

against renewing Trident, the position of the party across the UK

is to renew it. The Scottish Labour Party have voted against renewing it

and in some ways he was saved from himself at the last Labour

conference when it wasn't debated, because it would probably have voted

to retain Trident and it would have meant if his new politics lets the

party make policy, he then presumably would have had to troop

into the lobby with the serves to renew Trident. In one way it suits

Jeremy Corbyn that no decision is made and until and if it will go his

way. Otherwise, he will be in embarrassing position. Worse than

now. That will be the key, the timing of the votes. On George

Osborne I asked about his credibility, how damaged is it or is

it not by the tax credit row? Well I think it is too early to say it has

damaged his chances for the leadership, because that is three

years away and there will be a lot of ups and Down's before that. The

tax credit measure is the biggest item, the biggest change at welfare

that I can remember in ten years of covering Parliament and it changed

eight million people and made them worse off, including three million

who will lose an average of a thousand pounds a year. That is

massive and it looks like George Osborne got the tactics wrong,

because he put it through the lords as well. He got the strategy wrong

and it was hurting hard working family and got the communication

wrong by saying there maybe mitigation and many Tory MPs are

baffled, because the things that George Osborne should be good at he

didn't. Thank you. Now, he's made the Fedora

his trademark accessory and he says Now former MP and London mayoral

hopeful, George Galloway, has plans to open a shop

specialising in vintage clothing. He's even put his money where his

mouth is and bought a lease on one In a moment we'll be talking to

the man himself but first a reminder of some other politicians

that like to cut a dash. # You can win the admiration

of the common population # You can be a star,

long as you're looking good! # You have made the main connection,

you can win the next election # Don't care who you are,

just leave them mesmerised, # Long as you're looking good

at how much you can get away with # You'll get treatment preferential

your main credential # It's a rule rule that's still

essentially iron-clad # Remember you can't look

back, long as you're looking good! # They air-brushed me. Who is the best

dressed politician apart from yourself. You showed a good cross

section. Even the unlikely Ronald Reagan, who I thought was imMacyou

latly -- well dressed. Even if his brain was missing. Both of your

guests this morning in fact are well dressed, well turned out. I won't

ask about me. What about Jeremy Corbyn? Well he is actually brushing

himself up well now I think. You thought he was a scruff before. He

looked fine at the Cenotaph in white tie and tails at the buck pas

reception -- Buckingham Palace reception for the chps the Chinese

president. He should have discovered this years ago. What about Zac

Goldsmith? Yes and he wears vintage clothes and his billionaire father

deceased, he wears his suits and wears him well. That is not Vince

thaj. -- vintage. Everything I'm wearing apart from the underwear and

socks is vintage. I buy my shirts which are bespoke British made, now

long extinct English tailors for ?10 a pop. I buy shirts every week at

?10 a time. You will pay ?100 for a new shirt made... You have to swap

contacts and cards. Give these guys some tips. You mentioned Reagan and

we focussed on Margaret Thatcher. Was she stylish. I may not be a

gentleman, but I know how gentlemen behave and it was impolite to

comment on any woman's dress. But no, I didn't. I thought he was going

soft. Do you think the BMA were wrong to turn down the Chancellor? I

thought it was lower middle class boredom. In a glass case. I am sure

it was a commercial decision that Margaret Thatcher would have

approved of. No one would have gone to see it. You know that is a point.

What, is it important to look good for politicians? I don't think

sharp, politicians need to look authentic. As I'm finished in the

House I put jeans on. I dress for the occasion. I want to make sure

your shop is a success. I like your suit and lapels. Don't worry I

haven't given up politicians. suit and lapels. Don't worry I

si Deek Khan be wok? Yes he is third place in the sattorial stakes. I'm

third place in the sattorial stakes. I'm

am on 33/1 today and Greens and Ukip are on 100/1. Me and Zac are out in

front sattorially. Yes. The campaign's going from

strength to strength. Have you decided about joining Labour, you

wanted there been an invitation? There has

been no invitation. It is a question of rescinding. They have to rescind

my unjust expulsion opposed by Mr Foot and Mr Benn and Mr Corbyn. But

they're showing no sign. Well, watch this space.

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

The question was - what is the House of Commons due to debate this week?

(A) Moving the UK parliament to Strasbourg whilst restoration work

(B) Selling off Whitehall to build new homes.

(D) Putting a pop up bar in the House of Lords.

The knives are sharpened and the heat is on. It can only mean one thing.

Britain's best chefs are back in town.

They're here because they want this title. I'm really excited.