18/04/2016 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

George Osborne says the public wants less rhetoric and more facts when it

This morning, he's claimed that the UK economy could be worse

off by the equivalent of ?4,300 a year per household by 2030.

Critics have called the figures "completely worthless".

So do the Treasury's numbers really add up?

There's reported to be a looming crisis in primary

We'll talk to the Shadow Education Secretary

Labour decides not to allow McDonalds into its annual

conference, and faces accusations of snobbery against

And with England cricket legend Ian Botham saying he's batting

for a British exit from the EU, we'll be asking who really listens

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

of the programme today, two of our own celebrities

Well, they're celebrities in our eyes anyway.

It's Conservative MP Kwasi Kwarteng,

So George Osborne has stepped in to the debate on whether the UK

should vote to remain or leave the EU in the June referendum.

He's bought the Treasury's firepower to bear, releasing an analysis

of the economic impact of a vote to leave -

and it paints a pretty bleak picture of what could happen

Leave campaigners were quick to question the Treasury's

credibility, and described the report as "absurd".

The 200-page document claims the economy could be 6% smaller

than forecast by 2030 if the UK votes to leave the EU.

That's the equivalent - the report says - of ?4,300 a year

The Treasury insists there will be a ?36 billion a year black hole

in the UK's public finances if the it left the EU

- and that - they say - could lead to an 8% rise income tax.

Their calculations are based on what they call

the "middle option" - where the UK would negotiate a trade

deal with the EU similar to that which has been agreed with Canada -

but George Osborne insisted today that in all scenarios,

Britain would be "permanently poorer" outside the EU.

Leave campaigners called the research "erroneous",

and criticised the Chancellor's ability to predict what the economy

And campaigners also argue that in all the Treasury's assumptions,

Well, George Osborne has been hammering home his message

with a speech in Bristol earlier today - let's have a listen.

So the economic analysis shows that this Canadian-style arrangement

comes at a real economic cost for Britain.

The central estimate is that, in the long run,

GDP would be over 6% smaller, and Britain would be worse off

The people of Britain want to know the facts before they vote

The Treasury analysis steps away from the rhetoric and

Britain would be permanently poorer if we left the European Union.

Well, let's hear now from the man we turn

It's Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Paul Johnson, what do you make of this ?4,300 figure? The first thing

to say is that it is broadly in the same direction as nearly all the

other economic analysis that has been done. If you move to a world

where you have less free trade and more expensive trade with the EU,

that is likely to have a negative affect on the economy. The scale of

that effect is uncertain for all sorts of reasons, partly because we

don't know exactly what the agreements are that we would come to

with the European Union if leaving, and secondly, the precise cost of

it. If you look at the range of things that have come out from

places like the London School of Economics, this is broadly in that

range. Perhaps a bit above the average, but it isn't out of line

with many independent forecasts. How accurately can you predict the

economy that far in advance? They're talking about 2030. I looked at the

calculation in the report. I'm no maths genius, but even if you were,

you would pause for thought. You cannot predict it accurately. Whilst

the Chancellor is using this single number, ?4,300, the report has a

whole range of numbers for basing the assumptions and different trade

agreements. What you can say is about the direction of travel. What

this is trying to do is say not how big the economy will be in 15 years'

time, but how much difference there will be under two different

scenarios. It's probably a mistake to focus very much on ?4,300. For

one thing, it isn't an income number. It is a GDP number.

Secondly, there's a lot of uncertainty around it. In the

context of the other analysis that's been done, though, they all point in

the direction of a negative rather than a positive effect. Are there

any scenarios in your mind where the UK would not be permanently poorer

if we left the EU? If it were possible to essentially organise a

set of trade agreements which are almost the same as they are now,

then the big effects would be much dampened. Two things to say about

that - first, there's no question that in the short run there will be

a cost because of the uncertainty involved. If you look at the

estimates of the amount of foreign direct investment we might lose, it

will have an effect. Those Treasury figures do not take account of the

short-term effects. In the long run, it is uncertain the kind of trade

deals we will manage with everyone else. The sort of regulations we

ourselves create will be a more or less regulated or open economy. As

you get further out, you have more uncertainty. If we governed

ourselves well, you can see a world in which, in the long run, we are

better off. And we asked to speak

to a Treasury Minister about today's claims,

but were told no-one was available. Happily we can speak

to my guests of the day, Kwasi Kwarteng, the report says the

UK will be permanently poorer if we leave the TEU under any comparable

scenario. I think these figures are absurd. The Treasury were the same

people who said at the beginning of the last parliament that we would

have eliminated the deficit by 2015. That hasn't happened. The Treasury

did not predict the 2008 credit crunch. So for a bunch of officials

and economists to say they can describe with in ?1 what the state

of the British economy and what people's economic well-being will be

in 2030, 14 years' time, is absurd. None of the predictions that were

made in 2002 about 2016 have stood the test of time. So to project that

far forward is intellectually dishonest. So we shouldn't trust

anything that the Treasury says in terms of forecast? We have to use

our brains as to whether it is plausible. We have just heard from

Paul Johnson that the figures may not be accurate to the pound, but

the figures broadly for into line with every other single piece of

economic analysis that has been done by think tanks put forward by the

government. It has fallen within that range. We have to look at what

is happening here. The pro-EU support has not found a positive

argument. They realise there is no groundswell of support in the

country for the EU, so they are embarking on Project fear. They will

say that British people living in Europe will have to come back, they

have said we will have to lose 3 million jobs, Nick Clegg has said

that, and they claim will work be poorer. There is a pattern of fear.

Margaret Prosser, is that how you see it? Is it about fear? Is it was

George Osborne is resorting to, because he sees it as one of the

biggest weapons in his armoury to shoot down the Leave campaign's

arguments. You almost said this yourself a moment ago. We have just

had Paul Johnson from the IFS, an independent body, a professional

person, who says, in his opinion, that this report is broadly in line

with what they think is likely to happen. He himself has said you

cannot predict that many years ahead, which seems quite sensible.

14 years. It's a long time. Is it worth doing it, Margaret? There's a

whole lot of other stuff in there. The thing that really gets me about

all of this... Politicians keep saying, at the end of the day people

are going to vote. It will be the People's decision. But some of this

stuff doesn't mean anything to anybody. So we need to develop

arguments, both sides are guilty of this, I think, develop arguments

which something. Paul himself said that 4000 odd pounds isn't income.

It is about the GDP. It is money that those households wouldn't have.

It isn't money in their pockets. It is a different concept. Except,

Kwasi Kwarteng, Paul Johnson said there would be this short-term

uncertainty. The deal that could be done in two years' time, five years'

time, may be very profitable to the UK, but there would be short-term

uncertainty and problems with things like foreign investment and the

markets. It's all speculation, but is it worth people taking that risk?

I would argue there are equally big risks in staying in. You've got a

migrant situation that no one has dealt with, Germany making deals

with Turkey that we don't know the conclusions of, a Europe reserve

whose problems haven't been solved... There's just as many risks

of staying in the thing, and still giving a net contribution of ?10

billion per year. You criticise the Remain group and the governments are

talking about project fear, yet since when did you raise the

question of Turkey in the past? Suddenly it is all over the agenda.

It is a real, though. I am not saying that in 2030, I am not making

any claims about that. I'm talking about what I see today. That's the

reality. Margit Prosser, Kwasi Kwarteng does raise... It has been

going on for years. In terms of risks, Paul Johnson says there is

short-term uncertainty. There is uncertainty about the Eurozone and

being part of the EU. From the eurozone crash, we know that had

negative consequences for the UK. That could happen again. There are

risks. Of course there are. There are daily risks in life. We had to

make a decision, weighing the balance of what is the best thing.

It seems to me that those people who are campaigning to come out other

kinds of people, their history tells you this, who are not interested in

the level playing field that you have to abide by as a member of

Europe. You have too abide by the rules of the club, and they don't

like that. Jeremy Corbyn made this point last week. If we came out,

what happened to workers rights? Almost all employment protections

are based upon European legislation. What would happen if we came out?

Could you guarantee that? You cannot guarantee anything at this point,

but there is an issue here, quasi-, about you have not said what the

deal would look like. No one was a bigot champion for workers rights

than Tony Benn. -- a bigger champion. But he voted in 1973. You

voted to stay out in 1975. Till the day he died, he was utterly

consistent on the EU. If someone like him was consistent, how can

Margaret say that we will not guarantee workers' rights? It is

ludicrous. Tony Benn was a champion of workers' rights. What about how

it would actually look? It's very well saying that it is very negative

of the Remain camp, that we would get a better deal than Canada,

Norway or Switzerland. Any of the scenarios under Norway, Switzerland

or Canada, the Treasury report still says we will be poorer. We have a

better bargaining position than those countries. The British economy

is far bigger than the Canadian, the Swiss and the Norwegian economies.

By definition, we would get a better deal with the TEU trading bloc than

any of those countries. What is wrong with that? That leaves us

trying to negotiate a deal when we are not at the table, part and

parcel of the decision-making process. I don't understand where

the benefit comes from. If you look at the examples of Canada, the seven

years that is quoted in terms of forming that deal, it may not take

that long. If you look at Switzerland and Norway, the quid pro

quo is having to contribute in some way to the European budget. What

makes you think that you would get everything? If Germany and France

were to allow that, everyone would leave the EU.

Norway voted in 1994, 52 proceeds of people did not want to join, and

that has now got up to 72%. 72% of Norwegians don't want to join. That

is not answering my question. More people, far more Norwegians have

decided not... Do they contribute to an EU budget? They have the deal

that they have but if the EU was so marvellous you would think those

figures would reverse, but 22 years of being outside the EU, the numbers

of people wanting to stay outside of the EU in Norway has only gone up.

It is very difficult to compare us with Norway, we are a completely

different country. And we could get a better deal? We could get a much

better deal, we have more to offer. Potentially that is what the Leave

campaign are saying, and we don't know, which is still the issue for

lots of voters, is that there is still uncertainty for both sides.

Today it's all about the by-election taking place this afternoon to elect

a new Liberal Democrat hereditary peer.

Who is eligible to vote in the by-election?

Or D) all three Lib Dem hereditary peers?

Kwasi and Margaret will give us the correct answer.

Parents of children starting primary school in England will find out

today if they've got the school place they wanted -

there could be a shortage of 10,000 places by 2020.

Here's the schools minister, Nick Gibb,

Well, those figures are simply not true.

It's claiming there will be a shortage of 10,000 by 2019-20.

Over the last five years, we've created 600,000 school places,

and we have plans to create another 500,000 over

In fact, just last year, the school system created

So the idea that there will be a 10,000 pupil place shortage

in 2019 is simply not true, and they've based their figures

Earlier I spoke to the Shadow Education Secretary,

Lucy Powell, and began by asking if she agreed with the claims

of a 10,000 shortfall in primary school places in England.

Well, no, actually, I don't agree with that figure.

The figure that we've calculated from those same figures

How have you calculated those figures?

They look more like the figures for families who are not

getting their first or perhaps second choice of primary

school, rather than not having a place at all.

There are lots of different figures here, so the aggregates of all these

figures show clearly that there is a pupil places crisis.

There are figures about the number of families who won't get

their first choice schools today, that's about one in ten

of all families today won't be getting their first choice,

and around one in 20 families won't be getting any

But there is quite a big difference, to clarify, between not having

a place anywhere at a primary school and not getting your first choice,

because many families would still be happy or at least satisfied

with a place at their second or third choice.

They will have a place, it's not the same thing, is it?

Well, no, but one in 20 families won't get any of their options

at all, and some of those won't be offered a place at all anywhere,

and that's why we're seeing a very significant increase in the number

These figures are now at the highest level they've been for 15 years

with nearly half a million children in class sizes over 30,

We're also seeing the biggest rise in what we call Titan primary

I think there were about 16 of those schools at the beginning of this

Government's time in office, and now these are well into the hundreds,

so we're seeing more children being pushed into larger class sizes

and some schools having to get really big in order to accommodate

Big schools is not necessarily a problem if the class sizes

Big class sizes, yes, parents will be concerned

The Department for Education says free schools will make up the gap.

The issue with the free market approach, the free school approach,

is that simply leaving such a big increase in demand to market forces

When you say market forces, you mean free schools in areas

where there are shortages will take up some of the pupils that aren't

finding places in some of the state schools?

Let's hope they do, but the evidence so far has been that

many of the free schools that have opened so far have been in

In fact, of the free schools that have already opened,

only 4% are in areas of the most acute need,

and simply leaving to chance, really, that some organisation

or some body of parents is going to come along

and want to open a school where it's needed just isn't sufficient.

When you look at some of the areas like Manchester, London,

areas where there's really high demand, Milton Keynes and others,

this approach is just not working, and that's why local Government

leaders are making the same argument as me today,

Tory local Government leaders are making the same argument as me

today that we've got to give local authorities both the powers

and resources they need to ensure that they can meet that statutory

obligation of ensuring that every child has a place.

What do you think the role of immigration has played?

Priti Patel, the Employment Minister, has said that

the shortfall in primary school places is due to uncontrolled

migration, migration from the EU, particularly in areas like London

where the birth rate is increasing, and that has put pressure

I think this is a bit of scaremongering by Priti Patel.

Let's just disaggregate some of the figures.

In terms of new arrivals to this country, families arriving now,

these figures are very small in comparison to the overall

What about the figures over the last five or ten years?

If you look at the rising birth rate, and let's remember

that is a very good thing for our country and our economy,

these are the people who will be paying...

Only a quarter of the new births in this country are from foreign-born

mothers, and many of those will have British fathers.

A rising birth rate is a good thing for the country, these

are people who will pay our pensions and pay for our NHS going forward.

You might remember, as I do, 15, 20 years ago, the big policy issue

and problem for our country was a falling birth rate

and an ageing population, and how are we going to pay

Is that why Labour was very keen to increase immigration figures,

in order to increase the population in areas where, as you say, it

It wasn't about increasing, necessarily being keen

to increase immigration, but overall, where immigration has

had a net benefit on our country in terms of people coming

here to work and contribute and so on, of course

there are parts of the country where we need to deal with that

and where it is particularly acute, and place planning is part of that.

But that is about local areas having the powers and the resources

they need to deal with these issues, but overall the increases to place

planning and the places crisis that we are seeing

is because of a rising birth rate, which is a good thing

for the country, which we've known is coming for a long time,

and which the Government have woefully failed to deal

with because they want to leave it to the free market.

You've admitted we have known about it for an awfully long time,

some of that will have fallen under Labour's final years in Government,

and that Government has been blamed for not planning properly,

you knew there would be a demographic bulge

and you didn't plan for it in terms of school places at the time

It is not nonsense, you said yourself...

We built over 1,000 primary schools, and this is about the efficiency.

The families who are today finding out whether they got a place or not,

their children are aged three or four, they were not even born

at the time of the last Government coming into office.

To try and blame Labour is a bit rich, quite honestly.

Except that this problem has been going on for quite a number

of years, you have been predicting it for a number of years.

It has been coming, new places have been created over a number of years,

over a number of years, but not enough, and there are not

going to be enough coming on stream over the next few years,

which is what the LGA and others are saying today,

You would not want, ten, 15 years ago, to have classrooms

with teachers in it with nobody in them, that would be that would be

a surplus of places, so you have to have sufficient

number of places, and the Government are not creating sufficient number

of places, and that is the issue, it is not about actual absolute

numbers, it's about sufficient places, and that is something

they are woefully neglecting and they are not putting in place

the powers that people need locally to plan for their areas

and make sure that parents are not disappointed.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of British men and women have

travelled to Syria to support, fight for and, in some cases, die

If they return to the UK, they face prosecution and imprisonment.

But a much smaller number have also travelled to Northern Syria

So what should happen to them when and if they return?

Last year, the BBC's Quentin Somerville spoke to

one fighter, known only as "Jim", about his reasons for

The particular thing that brought me here was seeing

a photo of an Isis fighter, holding up the severed head of

When I saw that, although I didn't know it was possible then

to come here and make a contribution, I felt I had to.

I think it's very important to make a clear distinction in the law

between those who are coming here to fight against Isis and those

This issue is being raised in the Commons this week

He's become involved after a constituent who fought

in Syria was arrested on his return to the UK.

What are you raising in terms of what you think should happen to

people who do go out to fight against IS? The problem here is the

Government doesn't have a clear policy. We have an increasingly

clear and quite strong policy on those individuals who choose to go

and fight against the Kurdish Peshmerga and the Iraqi army by

joining IS, but we haven't really come to a settled view on how we

treat those individuals who you might say do the right thing,

because they are certainly driven by a strong moral mission in many cases

to go and joint Kurdish militias, and this is an issue that goes back

hundreds of years, 50,000 Brits went to fight in the American Civil War,

several thousand went to fight in the Spanish war, and those

individuals who went out there and thought they would come back to a

heroes welcome but in fact came back to suspicion from the security

services and workplace discrimination, and I think we are

starting to see the same with this growing group of Brits going to

fight on the right side of this conflict. But there are problems

with this group, too. Are you suggesting that Britain to go

abroad, undertake military training, fight and kill people, should come

back to the UK and not face sanctions? It is a complicated

situation. The concern I have is that the Government are not doing

anything to discourage individuals from going out there in the first

place, so you can go online, Google search groups like the main foreign

fighters' organisation, go to their Facebook account, make contact with

them, for 400 or ?600 you can book a flight and be out there in a week's

time, that is what happened to my constituent, who was working in a

care home in Newark one week and a couple of days later was on the

being trained to be a fighter with the YPG. To be clear, you are not

encouraging these people to go out and fight, even if they are fighting

against IS. Are you saying the Government is doing that by not

stating the dangers of the other side? It is all over the place. We

are not discouraging people from going out there, you can give the

throw and tell the immigration officer what you are doing and they

will allow you onto the plane, and get when you come back some

individuals will pass freely through immigration

into the country, and others, like my constituent, will be arrested

under the terrorism act, questioned, potentially charged with a very

serious offence, and have it on their record for the rest of their

life. You are saying they should be stopped from going in the first

phase, not go and be allowed to come back? We should have a policy that

stops you from going in the first phase and treat you fairly and

consistently when you come back. Meaning you should be arrested and

face some sort of sanction? You should be questioned because we

don't do what these individuals are doing out there but you should not

be charged under the terrorism activities would be lulled all you

have done is bike with our allies. These are individuals, many using

British aircraft, giving them cover out in the field but are charged

with terrorism on their return. Are you surprised to hear there are

individuals who do explain their legitimate, as they see it, reasons

for going out to fight, even if it is against IS on the side of the

Peshmerga, and then being allowed to go? I'm not surprised they want to

go. But are you surprised they are allowed to go? I don't see how you

could prevent them if they are fighting with our allies. But how do

we know they are acting legally? We do not know which militias they will

be fighting with and the rules of engagement. That is true, it is

right I would question them coming back because you have to make it

clear who they are fighting for but if it is established that they are

fighting with our allies I don't see how you should treat them on the

same basis as people fighting for IS. How would you feel it in terms

of treatment of these people when they come back? I think the question

of going out is a difficult one because how do you know they are

telling the truth? You are hardly going to go to the immigration

officer and say, I'm going to join Isis. They could say anything, so

you don't know. As you say, it is hugely complicated and of course

there are so many different groups in Syria, so how do we know which

people they are going to get involved with? That is a key point

because the YPG, the most popular group British citizens have gone out

to, there are widely diverging views on this group. Some people glorify

their actions as brave individuals fighting against IS, Amnesty

International think they are guilty of war crimes, the Turkish

Government claim they are allied to the PKK and over the weekend we

heard two British nationals and an Irish citizen were arrested crossing

from Syria back into Iraq having been with the YPG, and we

presume it is under diplomatic pressure from Turkey to the Iraqi

Government to discourage people from doing this, so British citizens have

got to understand they are getting themselves into a war zone and an

extremely complex political and diplomatic situation, and I think it

is incumbent on the British Government to discourage citizens

from doing that. All of these groups could be interpreted as terrorists

or freedom fighters. The years we have had protocols about the

circumstances, haven't we? But the other aspects of the new way of

doing things is the use of drones. I'm a member of the joint committee

on human rights in the house, and we have been conducting an inquiry into

the use of drones because the Government has no real policy about

that either. There are many things that have arisen through these

Middle East conflict in more recent times. And we are playing catch up.

It is also to do with the rise of social media and the Internet. It

has never been so easy to go online and find out about a conflict in

another part of the world, and to be on a plane out there.

The good old high street betting shop is under threat, according

But is a flutter at the bookies harmless fun,

We'll be discussing that in a moment, but first,

here's Malcolm George from the Association of British

Britain, we are told, is awash with opportunities to gamble.

Online, in casinos, at bingo, in arcades.

But one sector seems to unfairly attract more attention than any

Casinos are now more accessible than they've ever been before.

This casino in Central London has an open-door policy,

which means you can walk straight in and gamble right away.

But for their roulette, the stake limit is an eye-watering ?5,000.

If you are over 16, you can buy as many National Lottery

scratch cards as you want, but the staff are not trained

If you do have problems, there's no information about where to go.

But one sector seems to unfairly attract more

attention than any other - high street bookies.

Staff can monitor what everyone is staking, winning or losing,

and if someone is starting to bet more than usual.

Of course, people can develop problems, but staff here are trained

There's a plethora of information about how to get help,

and a self-exclusion system, so a punter can bar themselves.

A bookmaker's is the safest place to have a flutter,

but high street bookies are closing at a rate of close to one a day.

Regulation, taxes and myth-spinning are combining to kill off

If they die out, then the safest place to gamble will disappear.

Welcome. Are you saying that betting is the lesser of evils in terms of

gambling, or that the Keys perform a social good? It is a mixture of the

two. Betting has existed for hundreds of years. It is the

location that you put it in and the support mechanism that you put in

place. Once you move out of that, yes, bookies social environment, a

place where people have fun and a flutter. The interaction with staff

makes it a very safe environment. But you can still rack up tens of

thousands of pounds in debt. You talk about being able to gamble an

eye watering ?5,000 at casinos, but fixed odd terminals allow people to

bet up to ?100, in spite of restrictions introduced last year.

Roulette is ?5,000 per spin. Why is it a safer place to have a flutter?

Our staff are trained. 90% is ?50 and below. The average loss in

quasi-pozmack constituency is ?7. You said that ?7 is the average in

that constituency, but there was a case of a man who took his own life

after racking up debts in a bookmakers. So it can happen. Though

vast majority of people with a problem can gamble in lots of

different areas. If you take away bookmakers, those people would

gamble elsewhere. It could be online, in concealers or other

bookies. But the environment of the bookmakers, combined with the staff

interaction, makes it genuinely the safest place to gamble. Are you

convinced, Margaret Prosser? Is it a loss to the high street, losing

these bookies? The way I look at it is, we have people who are desperate

alcoholics who drink far too much and drink every day. No one is

suggesting we should close every pub or wine bar. I think we have to keep

these things in proportion. Clearly, the ability of staff to watch out

when somebody they can see is in trouble, the availability of

councillors, the willingness of the person themselves to go for

counselling, all of that has to be thrown into the mix. I don't think

closing down betting shops is going to change any of that, really. The

only thing I would say is, you ought to go into a betting shop with your

eyes wide open. As my mum used to say, you never see a bookie on a

bike! Very wise. It's true. Kwasi Kwarteng, bookmakers have been

described as the fixed odds betting terminals as sirens on the rocks of

the week will. Has she got a point was blue Margaret made a very good

point about pubs. We have people who have serious problems with alcohol

addiction, but no one is suggesting we should ban pubs. Generally, most

people have some degree of self control. We are not talking about

banning them. But perhaps, as a result of other circumstances, they

are beginning to close down. Should there be more regulation,

particularly on fixed-odds betting terminal is, that seem to feed

addiction? I think there shouldn't be. The big problem facing due is

the competition from online betting. That's the same as any retail

outlet, if that's what you describe your business as. Every retailer on

the high street is under the same pressure from online competition. Is

that just the way it is going to go. You can defend your corner of the

community in that way, but in the end, it may be overtaken by

technology what ever you do? That is the challenge for policy. All

sectors of the industry pay significant tax. What needs to be

decided is the balance. With the range of gambling options, where is

it best for people to gamble? And does the betting shop defied

potentially the best environment? That is the challenge for policy

makers. If things continue, we are going to see a decline. Is it better

for society that gamblers who use betting shops now move into other

environments, which may not be as safe? Thank you very much.

Let's have a look now at some of the big events likely to be

making the political weather this week.

Today is your last chance to register to vote if you want

to take part in the Welsh, Scottish or Northern Ireland

elections or local, mayoral and Police Commissioner

Resident Commonwealth and European Union citizens

Union will decide whether to formally recommend a vote to stay

in the European Union at a closed session of their conference.

Commons clash between Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and David Cameron

Scottish National Party will launch its manifesto for

Later in the week, US President Barack Obama is in London -

on Thursday he'll meet the Queen, who will be

He's also expected to make his much-publicised intervention

in the EU referendum debate, saying he believes Britain

We're joined now by two political journalists enjoying the bracing

spring air on College Green outside Parliament.

It's the closest they'll get to a holiday this side

it's Rafael Behr of the Guardian and Sebastian Payne

Welcome to you both. Rafael Behr the first day of official campaigning

was on Friday. Doris attacked the Prime Minister and his allies with

both barrels. -- Boris Johnson attacked. This rift is only going to

deepen further in the coming weeks. Yes, and it's hard to see how the

two bits of the Conservative Party will put themselves back together.

Going back to the end of last year, there was quite a lot of optimism in

number ten and among the Conservative whips that somehow the

Tories would just agree to disagree about this amicably. Then it would

be a comfortable win for Remain, and everyone could just muddle through

afterwards. Even when Michael Gove went off and joined the Leave

campaign, number ten people were saying, this will be civilised,

because he is a friend of the Prime Minister. That is now completely

forgotten, and the levels of animosity and passion are very, very

high. The things people are saying behind the scene is so toxic and

poisonous, it could get very nasty indeed in the next six weeks. Do you

agree that it has now got so toxic, Sebastian Payne, that it will be

impossible to pull the relations together after the European

referendum? It will be fascinating to see what the party does next.

Eurosceptic MPs do feel it has become very angry very quickly. What

we have seen today with the Treasury figures, saying that every household

will be ?4,300 worse off, that is the project max here we keep hearing

about. -- project fear. The way they are arguing about it is what we are

going to see every day in this campaign. The government says

something, and the Out campaign say the opposite. There is an important

personal driver. A lot of the public are saying that they don't have the

facts and they don't know what to think. For both sides, lots depends

on the message givers. If you are on the Leave side, to achieve your goal

of getting out of the EU, you have to destroy the credibility of the

Prime Minister. It's very difficult. Ukip don't mind doing that anyway,

but you now have a section of the Conservative Party whose biggest

political objective is to tarnish the reputation of the Prime

Minister. And that is very serious. To some extent, it is unavoidable.

How else do you drive that message home if you don't say that what the

other side is saying is complete nonsense? Absolutely. Look at what

Boris Johnson has been saying. He is a format schoolmate and colleague of

the Prime Minister. What we are seeing now is a lot of those

tensions coming into the public, and number ten and Downing Street are

keen to discredit what the outers are saying, saying that they do not

live in reality and don't understand what is going on. It will get a lot

worse. It will get more personal. The outer is really do see this,

they are attacking the personalities of the people involved. George

Osborne was saying today, did he really believe that Brexit was not

-- was going to be an option? I think on the outside there's a lot

of anger towards In people, who say they are keeping all options open,

where is in fact, they were remainders all along. Thank you.

Only six or seven weeks of this to go! Kwasi, would you use the

language that Stuart Jackson used in his tweet, that George Osborne is a

hypocrite? I didn't see the tweet. I don't think that personal abuse is

helpful. Temperature -- obviously, tempers are fraying. I do believe

that the party would come together. If you are calling the Prime

Minister the Gerald Ratner of modern politics, and on the other side,

George Osborne is saying it is nonsense economics. Illiterate that

you and your colleagues are for saying we should come out. How do

you reconcile that? Somebody put it to me, a rugby player, that if you

have a very hard rugby match... You are playing the people, not the

ball. You are playing a complex match. That does not mean that the

party will not come together. I think it will. When we look at the

contrast with Labour, with Jeremy Corbyn, that will unite the party.

Can the Prime Minister legitimately be in the negotiating team in the

event the UK votes to come out? I don't see why not. Do you think it

is likely to happen? I don't know, I don't know what is going on in his

head, what his motivation is, whether he would be motivated to

stay on, but I don't see any logical reason why he shouldn't be part of

the team. Would it be credible for the Leeds side, somebody who has

campaigned to stay in, would then be part of the trade deal to come out?

I don't have a problem with it. Ken Clarke said Mr Cameron will not last

30 seconds in his job if we vote to leave. The Prime Minister has a huge

fund of goodwill, it is remarkable that he achieved a majority after 23

years in which the Conservatives had not had one, and he is a very

powerful political figure so I don't see why he cannot carry on.

Now, the fast food chain McDonalds says

it's disappointed that Labour's ruling body has decided to ban it

from running a stand at the party's annual conference.

According to the Sun On Sunday, the company wanted to set up

an "interactive experience" display to support British farm produce

The Tories and SNP have allowed McDonalds to set up similar stands

at their conferences, and vetoing the stand

will reportedly cost the party ?30,000.

It's a decision that's angered some Labour MPs.

The former minister Ian Austin tweeted:

And Walthamstow MP Stella Creasey said she found McDonald's the best

Well, Labour says it doesn't comment on its commercial decisions

but my guest of the day Margaret Prosser is a former

Was it wise to turn down 30 grand? No! We are not in a position to be

turning down money. But, having said that, clearly if you have got a

principled position then money has to come second. But what is a

principled position against McDonald's? I don't get it. I was

hoping you did and you would be able to tell us! My view is, you look at

an organisation in the round. One of the things that McDonald's is famous

for is almost every year coming in the top ten of good employers. They

are good employers, they provide apprenticeships and trading, some of

us might be sniffy about the idea of flipping burgers for a living but

lots of people do it and the way in which McDonald's conduct themselves

with their workforce is really pretty good. Do you think it is a

snobby attitude? It is a snobby attitude. You'd think it is just

snobbery turning down ?30,000? I think it is a mixture of a snobby

attitude and somebody looking for a healthier option. What would you say

to the NEC? It is the executive that made the decision, isn't it? I would

have argued, let's look at how much money they have got in the bank

year. Do you think they will change their minds? It sounds like the

decision has been made. I don't think they would because the NEC

would have to do that and I think it is as it is. Do you think they

should explain why? They said they do not make comments on commercial

decisions, does it sound like they don't want to say the reason behind

it? We are not talking about discussing a contract or something,

which clearly do not want to see discussed, but to just say, I can't

see why they cannot say why they have made that decision. It doesn't

seem to me that it ought to be top secret. In your mind it is the wrong

decision? I think so, yes. What do you say, Kwasi? I don't understand

it, McDonald's is a respected company that employs thousands of

people, Ian Austin said his first job was there, people generally like

the product, it is a successful company, I don't understand what

they would turn them away. On the snobby side, what do you think of

Wes streeting saying it is not exactly a falafel bar, what is he

trying to say? I think he is trying to imply that certain people would

only find themselves in a falafel bar or some equivalent. If it were

reading or dangerous for the Labour Party to be seen in that now take

drinking Islington residing falafel eating non-McDonald's eating why? I

don't think it is helpful, particularly as huge numbers of the

members will not be in that class, shall we say. In that vein, the

Tories are famous for having a champagne bar and Harvey Nichols...

I don't know what you are talking about! Do these things matter at

conferences? I think some people get very, very tied upon this, and

actually a week or two after the conference no-one cares. Usually

because they are too drunk to care! As a journalist you can speak for

yourself! I am only the one reporting and following on this! But

there is a worrying point about Labour being anti-business, it is

worrying they should be so hostile to McDonald's, it is extraordinary

to me. I would like to know the reason why they have turned down

McDonald's because I think it is a myth that people like you, Kwasi,

like to generate and continue to grow that we are anti-business,

because I don't think, there is no evidence for that. If the Labour

Party would like to offer a full response, they can do so any time! I

shall see what I can find out! Now, whose opinion will you listen

to when it comes to casting your As we've amply demonstrated this

morning voters are being bombarded with information, statistics

and perhaps even a bit of rhetoric from politicians

and campaigners on both sides. But if you don't fancy listening

to George Osborne or Boris Johnson, could a celebrity convince you one

way or another? Let's have a look at some

of the famous faces to have publicly Former England cricketer Ian Botham

came out for the Leave campaign yesterday, saying Britain has "lost

the right to govern itself, to make our own laws

and to choose who comes here". Also in the Leave camp

is Downton Abbey creator and Conservative peer

Julian Fellowes, who claims remaining in the EU

would be like "chaining yourself to a radiator

in a burning building". And the Oscar-winning

actor Michael Caine, who says we "cannot be dictated

to by thousands of faceless civil Backing the campaign

to stay in the EU are TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson -

he thinks "Britain, on its own, has little influence

on the world stage". He's joined by Virgin

boss Richard Branson, who says leaving the EU would be

"very damaging" for Britain. And the actress Emma Thompson

who argues we'd be "mad not to" stay And in the last hour Ian Botham has

been speaking to the BBC about his decision to back the British exit.

It is an island. Remember that and be proud to be English. The economy,

economics, we are hearing this number and that number but I think

with ?350 million plus per week going into the EU, getting 50% back

if you are lucky, it is a lot of money and maybe we could address a

lot of our own problems with that money.

So do celebrity endorsements really change the way people vote?

To discuss this we're joined by the psychotherapist Lucy Beresford.

Welcome back to the Daily Politics. Do people listen to celebrities?

They do, all the time, not least because so much of our

decision-making is unconscious, so it is not so much that we listen to

the celebrity but that we are paying attention without realising it to

our emotional connection to that celebrity. Much more likely than

when people listen to politicians, for example? Yes, though your own

party political persuasion will mean you have allegiance to some people,

but in terms of celebrities it is very

much more under the radar. Does it depend on the celebrity how deeply

you listen to it, even subconsciously? Yes, and it depends

on whether that celebrity appears to fit with what they are talking

about. You can see why someone like Ian Botham, for example, might

favour Brexit because he has had a career which is very much about

leading from the front and being a bit of a maverick, a have an

emotional attachment to him that goes all the if you have an

emotional attachment to him that goes all the you think, this guyto

events at Headingley in 1981 and you have a powerful connection, you

think, this him and pay attention. If you don't know who we use because

you are too young or you think he is just a has-been sportsman, you won't

pay attention in the same way. Does it liberate people if what the

celebrity says resonates in a way you describe with Ian Botham, does

it mean they are free to boys their own opinions? I think they decide

that they don't have to pay attention to this too carefully,

they can just pass their allegiance over to someone else and get them to

do the talking. If you have got something as obligated as this kind

of reverend, where there are so many facts and figures being thrown at

you, not least today, a lot of people think, because we are group

creatures be preferred to the like belonged, we find it hard to run

against the herd, so if we find a celebrity that appeals to us we will

follow what they said. Do you agree celebrity endorsements are

important? I think they can cut through, I just about old enough to

remember 1981! I was six years old. What he did, for cricket lovers...

He was a hero. It will never be forgotten, people will identify with

that. I agree, I think people do, certain people will be really swayed

by Emma Thompson, because she stands for different approaches, different

attitudes towards politics and the way society is organised, etc, so

some people will be very influenced by that, I would have thought. What

about the politicians, because this band 's political spectrum is, you

have got people for in and for out across the political borders, but on

your side, is Nigel Farage an asset or not? He is an asset for people

who like him. I think he is a very marmite politician, someone who

people have very strong feelings about, and there will be lots of

people who trust him on this issue, and there may be people who are less

persuaded by him. What about George Galloway? Again, and maverick

politician, very idiosyncratic, very individual, and people may respond

to them. Tony Blair for the state campaign? He is pretty much

yesterday's man. You could argue that. What about Tony Blair? Those

of us who have stuck with Tony Blair through thick and thin will still be

influenced by that but there are many people who take a very

different view. He has become something of a Marmite character, I

think. What about Jeremy Clarkson? Would he repel or attract? I think

you would repel as many as it would attract. He is a love him or hate

him person. And that is why the celebrity chosen has to be so

carefully done, because you can have those characters that are very

divisive or if somebody else comes in you would think, I would never

have thought the Spice Girls would have supported Margaret Thatcher, or

whatever Ralph, so it catches you by surprise and if you are in favour of

those people do think, yes, I will pay attention to what you say, where

somebody is some thing Haka somebody says something and you don't see the

connection, people can really do that -- whereas if somebody says

something and you don't see the connection. People don't respond on

a rational level. There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was who is eligible

to vote in the by-election taking place today to elect

a new Liberal Democrat Or D) all three Lib Dem

hereditary peers? This is going to be hugely

embarrassing... I think it is all peers. It's not! It is certainly

not. I think it is Lib Dem Herod Tory peers. Yes, just the three Lib

Dem hereditary peers, there are more people going for it than there are

voting for them! But that is all we have got time for, goodbye!

You look like you've just seen the Grim Reaper.

Well, it was a lot to take in, wasn't it?