23/05/2016 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Just one month to go until Britain votes in the referendum on EU

membership, and both sides are turning up the volume.

The Prime Minister and Chancellor are warning of a "DIY recession"

lasting a year, should we vote to leave.

Their opponents say their forecast is "fantastical".

Meanwhile, Leave campaigners continue to push their message

that the NHS would be better off out of the EU, despite claims

from some senior figures within the health service.

Questions over the Conservatives' election spending continue.

We'll speak to the SNP MP who's reported the Tories

And, the journalist Rachel Johnson will be here to tell us

about her campaign to change the planning laws, and stop

her wealthy neighbours digging down to create

And, with us for the whole of the programme today, two MPs

who are going to spend the next month arguing over Britain's future,

But we know they like each other really, underneath!

It's the former Conservative Defence Secretary and Leave

And the Labour MP David Lammy, he's supporting a vote to Remain.

So, in four weeks' time, voters will be going to the polls.

And, as we pass that landmark, the claims and counterclaims

The might of the Treasury machine has been brought to bear

by the Remain camp this morning, with their latest warning

While their opponents in the Leave camp are pursuing their own favoured

messages on the potential benefit of leaving for the NHS, and

So, let's take you though some of those big claims.

David Cameron and George Osborne have released a Treasury

report warning that Britain would enter a year-long, so-called

DIY recession, with the economy

Meanwhile, Leave campaigner Penny Mordaunt has launched

a new push highlighting the possible risks of Turkish accession

to the EU, focussing on David Cameron's call to "pave

the road from Ankara to Brussels."

The fight this week will also centre on the role the EU plays in the NHS,

with its chief executive Simon Stevens yesterday

claiming exiting would cost staff and resources.

Those campaigning to Leave have launched a new TV advert

which argues the reverse, saying health service could benefit

by up to an extra ?350 million a week after a Brexit.

In Wales, the leaders of Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru

have put aside their differences to back Remain.

Carwyn Jones and Leanne Wood said that Wales was "stronger,

safer and better off in Europe".

But one friendship appears to have hit the buffers,

with David Cameron's policy guru Steve Hilton today arguing that

So, those are some of the big campaign issues.

Let's begin by talking about one of them, and that's the possibility

Gentlemen, if you look at the vote the poster, Turkey, population of 76

million is joining the EU. David Lammy, will that happen?

Historically, the Germans and French have been against it. We are

certainly lukewarm about it. It came up in discussion in relation

to the refugees in the last few months, and a deal that was done

that is seen to put this way into the long grass, so it is not

reality. I might say my constituencies, with

the largest Turkish speaking publishing in Britain, 18,000

Cypriots from the 2011 census, 50,000 Turkish speaking former

Kurds. They are really contributing to our economy. This is whipping up

a storm. To get a debate about immigration, not the EU, I

suspect... If it was on the table because talks

are supposed to have been energised, would you be in favour of Turkey

joining in the next five years? Not as of today. That is

scaremongering, Project Fear by your side?

The aim is to get Turkey into the European Union. The European Union

game. And Britain? British Government

policy to support Turkish policy of the EU. The Gwent has always been

that it would help push the Turkish political process towards the norms

of the EU. But, how do you get a country of 80

million people into the EU while used to have free movement? And the

problems that could have caused with mass migration inside the EU? That

risk is still there, it is not being addressed. We have not stand the

concept of free movement of people, that is the biggest roadblock to

their membership. Because of the veto which Penny

Morduant incorrectly said we didn't have, the likelihood of Turkey ever

joining the EU in the foreseeable future is off the cards?

Turkey was able to use the migrant crisis to its benefit. It hasn't got

Visa free movement yet. You see the influence Turkey is

wielding. And you see the risks that if Turkey were to join along with

wielding. And you see the risks that Albania and others, that principle

of free movement would mean potentially huge migrations across

Europe in search of work. David Cameron was

Europe in search of work. yesterday Britain does have a veto,

which he exercised it? If you look back at his track record, he has

been in favour as Liam Fox has said of Turkish accession, he championed

it. I am confident, as of today, he

would, because of the situation in Europe finds itself in. Alongside

him would be the Germans who are clear they don't want Turkey coming

into the EU, and the French. It isn't going to happen, it was

doubtful before the crash, very doubtful as of today.

It is doubtful. So you are because of a British Government

veto, even if you doubt David because of a British Government

I don't believe it is out of the question for Turkey to join, it is

clear question for Turkey to join, it is

Once we have decided to stay in the EU and we are locked in, it is 41

years since we last had a choice, who is to say we won't have all

these countries in number four way are given another say.

And the year 3000... David Cameron said... Did you not believe him?

They think they can predict these numbers far out. It is the

Government policy to see Turkey come in, and the EU.

Every expert over the weekend in terms of EU put it said it is

unlikely. Alongside the poster, Leave campaigners claimed Britain

will open the doors to high levels of mergers, terrorists and

kidnappers from Turkey, is that responsible?

You need to look at the whole position.

That claim... I wouldn't use those exact words.

You can see that there are commuter seen what has happened in recent

days with those coming into the EU. We don't know whether they are

economic migrants, refugees, sympathises with terrorist

movements. When they get citizenship, the point is, of any EU

country, they have a right to settle in the UK.

You support those words to mark the problem is that you would not know

who got citizenship. That could be a real fear, opening

the door to people, you don't know who they are and they do.

I think, more night, less heat. It is not imminent, it is not

happening. We are whipping up a storm about the problem is not on

the cards. Turkey would like to come in but it is absolutely cleared the

three major countries in Europe do not want them.

On the wider point you have just raised, we know there are millions

of migrants entering the EU, we don't know who they are. When they

are given citizenship. They are entering the Schengen area,

not Britain. How many years does it take for

someone to get citizenship? Between two and three. I think you

will find it is seven or eight, if you look at the list.

Not two years. But when they do, they will have a right to settle in

the UK. We have no means of stopping them. If we vote to stay, we have no

means of controlling our border in terms of which EU citizens have a

right to settle in the UK. That is the fear many people have.

Immigration has been something the Leave campaign will focus on.

Remain on the economy. Another area opening up fierce debate is the NHS

over the weekend. Simon Stephens, entered the fray in favour of

Remain, while David Owen said the NHS would be better if Britain left.

Let us listen to both of them. When Mark Carney says that the risk

of a slowdown in economic growth, possibly a recession,

if we end up exiting the EU, if Mark Carney is right,

then that is a severe concern for the National Health Service,

because it would be very dangerous if, at precisely the moment the NHS

is going to need extra funding, actually, the economy goes

into a tailspin, and that funding If there is any danger to the NHS,

it is in staying in, with all the elements of the NHS

which are now involved with the EU. For most of the first 20

years of our membership, the Common Market, we had no

involvement with the NHS at all. Now, the NHS procurement policy,

the NHS competition policy is all impacting because we started

to marketise the NHS It continued under the coalition

with the Liberal Democrats and this And it has continued under this

Conservative Government. Liam Fox, Simon Davies rejects the

idea suggested by your side that extent would free up money that

currently goes to Brussels. At best he said it would fund the NHS the 19

days a year. Any extra funding would be helpful

and Simon Stephens has been overseeing the biggest deficit in

the NHS. Rather than involving himself in...

The figures imply something different, you say. It wouldn't

necessarily all go on the NHS. It is up to Government to decide how

we spend that money, money is available. At the moment we are

sending that to Brussels, ?10 billion a year we send net to

Brussels. You don't think we could spend that money better ourselves on

our own parities rather than handing it over to the bureaucrats in

Brussels? What the Vote Leave campaign is

doing is offering governments in the future far greater freedom.

Simon Stephens may not think ?10 billion a year or a share of that

would help. He is running a ?2.5 billion deficit in the NHS this

year. If you would think that money would be better spent removing that

deficit... You might think he would have a good

idea of what is going on in the NHS. With the biggest deficit in the NHS

has one he might be better spending his time on that and getting

involved in the referendum campaign. It is a lot of money. Even if you

take your version of the figures that would not be going to Brussels,

it would be a lot the Government could decide and it would be up to

then to decide to spend on different priorities and the NHS could be one.

Simon Stephens, for Labour and the Conservatives, he has rubbished that

figure. He said it amounts to about 19 days spending. Anyone looking at

the NHS objectively can see that mental health, particularly, is in

collapse. Can see there are real problems in primary care in our

country. There are still lots of surgeries and GPs struggling.

Against that context, he said quite rightly, if there is a recession,

the NHS gets a serious cold, we don't benefit at all from leaving.

That is completely reasonable. He is impartial, careful about his

comments. A man who has worked for successive governments and knows.

You are part of a party and Government which said consistently

the NHS relies on a strong economy. Are you saying that is wrong?

We have a strong economy and continue. I think we will whether we

are in the EU or not. The point is we are sending a net ?10 billion a

year to Brussels. That figure has been rubbished. That

is the Treasury figure. That money would be better spent on

our priorities in Britain and the priorities of the EU bureaucrats.

Those cannot be guaranteed priorities.

You don't understand my point. That is net.

Would you be able to guaranteed to those areas with subsidies they

would get the same money if we left the EU?

But, what about the terrorists that would be imposed on our

pharmaceuticals and companies as a consequence of leaving?

That would bloat the NHS budget. I don't believe that, there is no

logic. Before we go on talking about this,

At the end of the show, Liam and David will give us

David Cameron and George Osborne have been giving a joint press

conference this morning as a DIY store in Eastleigh.

So, what are the numbers from the Treasury analysis today?

An economist looked at two scenarios.

One where Britain experiences a shock, the second,

And under both scenarios, here are the results.

This is what happens if Britain leaves.

The economy shrinks, the value of the pound falls,

inflation rises, unemployment rises, real wages are hit, so too are house

prices, and, as a result, Government borrowing goes up.

The central conclusions of today's Treasury analysis are clear.

A vote to leave will push our economy into a recession.

Let's speak now to Gerard Lyons, he's one of the economists

Do you accept that there will be a short-term shock if we leave the EU,

as the Treasury says? I do believe there will be a shock. I

as the Treasury says? I do believe same about two years ago. I

as the Treasury says? I do believe detailed analysis. But the reality

is that even though there might be a temporary shock, the outcome for the

UK economy with Brexit is positive. But I find surprising about today's

Treasury analysis is how pessimistic it is. They have assumed a far

deeper and longer hit, and they have portrayed the figures in a bizarre

way. They have said the hit to the economy is down 3.6% over two years.

They have not pointed out whether that means the economy is bigger or

smaller, because as we that means the economy is bigger or

Budget a few months ago, the independent OBR said the economy

would be 4.4% bigger after two years. So it is difficult to

would be 4.4% bigger after two things in perspective. The Treasury

has outlined three areas where they think the economy would be hit. One

of the three, I agree with. There would be an uncertainty impact.

Secondly, they said there would be a financial impact. But there you can

turn the Treasury's argument on its head. They said the pound could be

down up to 15%. When the Chancellor was talking about the march of the

makers, he said the fall in the pound would help exporters, and a

fall in the pound would basically bring it down to a level where a

couple of years ago, the Chancellor said that was good for the economy.

The third point of the Treasury is their assumptions about the

so-called transition effect. They suggest that leaving the EU and

embracing Brexit means we would both keep the regulations and keep up

high tariff barriers. You can question that significantly. I agree

with the fact that there might be a temporary short-term impact, but the

Treasury's analysis is far too pessimistic. But you do agree that

there would be a short-term shock. The question is, if you cannot

quantify it and you don't know how long that shock will last, you can

see how people might vote to stay in. You can quantify it and you can

make assumptions. I did a detailed analysis a couple of years ago which

also had independent forecasters look at it, and we found with a

Brexit scenario, cutting tariff barriers and becoming global, I was

looking at the London economy. Brexit added 900 jobs to London

economy over two business cycles and an additional 200,000 jobs --

900,000 jobs, compared to 200,000 jobs if we stayed in the EU. What is

the evidence that you know better? I am saying that in every economic

debate, there are two sides, and of the three points the Treasury has

assumed, I agree with one of their assumptions about the uncertainty

effect. But the financial effect would be positive. A weaker pound in

a low inflation environment would allow interest rates to remain low.

That is positive. I disagree with the assumptions the Treasury made

about the likely policy scenario outside in terms of tariffs and

regulations. Ahead of Black Wednesday back in 1992, I took a

very different view and people criticised my view. I said the pound

would leave the ERM and it would be good news for the economy. At that

time, the Treasury said if the pound left the ERM, inflation would rise

and the economy would shrink. Of course, the opposite happened. I am

not afraid to have a different view. But I can understand where the

Treasury is coming from in that there would be a shock. But I would

argue that they are far too pessimistic and they have made some

unrealistic assumptions. We are now joined by the Treasury minister,

Harriet Baldwin. So, unrealistic and pessimistic assumptions from Gerard

Lyons in terms of the Treasury analysis? Actually, Gerard Lyons is

one of the eight economists that the Brexit campaign has found in the

entire world to support the case that we would be better off if we

left. He is saying he agreed that there would be uncertainty. And

there is a great deal of economic analysis that shows that when there

is uncertainty in the world, businesses put investment decisions

on hold. They freeze their decisions to hire additional people, and it

leads to an economic shock. We have spelt out today not just the

uncertainty effect, but also the transition effect, the one where we

are moving to a worst trade deal. We know that whatever we move to will

be worse than what we currently have. That means the transition to

being permanently poorer. People and businesses would have to adjust.

Thirdly, there would be a financial shock. We have agreed on a cautious

set of assumptions. What is the evidence that GDP could grow by 3.6%

less than currently predicted, which goes up to 6% less if, as you claim,

there would not be a deal for access to the single market for the UK if

it left the EU, that house price growth would be hit by 10%, going up

to 18% in the worst scenario? These figures sound like they have been

plucked out of thin air. These are cautious assumptions. We have taken

the core scenario, the OBR forecast if we remain, because the government

wants us to remain. It is an important, permanent decision that

the country is making and we think strongly that the country will be

better off if we remain. But where is the evidence for these figures?

Your viewers will be able to see the common-sense case that where there

is uncertainty, we know the process of leaving is a two-year negotiation

process. Businesses and consumers would not know what they would end

up with, but we do know that all of the different trade arrangements,

all of the different deals that have been cited, like Norway and Canada,

are worse than what we have. But Britain is different and we are in a

different situation to those countries. Are you saying people

should rely on the Treasury for getting its analysis right with its

track record? There are lots of other sources of analysis on this,

whether it is the IMF, the OECD, or a range of different academics from

different universities or whether it is our own Bank of England. There

has been a huge number of different estimates and they have all agreed

that the range of possible shocks to the economy would be between bad to

very bad. You have just heard Brexit's an economist saying there

would be a short-term shock. We say 500,000 jobs fewer would exist in

the economy during a two-year period and interest rates would go up for

people who want to borrow money. That is wholeheartedly bad for the

British economy. You heard Gerard Lyons saying he agreed that there

would be some shock to the economy and some uncertainty, but that that

would correct. Bearing in mind that this is a vote that is supposed to

settle the matter for regeneration, are you asking people to base their

vote on the future of the UK's relationship with the EU on what

could happen over a two-year period rather than what might happen in a

30 year period? The UK Government thinks we will be better off not

only in the short term, but also in the long term. That is because the

single market is the gold standard of trade agreements.

The Leave campaigners have said they don't want to be in the single

market. They have not been clear about what kind of trade arrangement

they would see. All we can say is that all other trade arrangement are

worse than the current arrangement. The single market gives businesses

in this country access to 500 million consumers. Let's look at one

of the predictions. Carolyn Fairbairn of the CBI says the claim

that families would be better off if we stay in the EU are not accurate.

She says that is not a correct figure that she would use. How

confident can people be figure that she would use. How

other figures? I think figure that she would use. How

economic expertise people listen to, the UK would be economically worse

off. Businesses and individuals would be worse off. Is accuracy

important in would be worse off. Is accuracy

are, it is hard for us in the Treasury to be able to compare what

is being Treasury to be able to compare what

They can't agree amongst themselves what they would like to have. But we

do know the single market is what they would like to have. But we

over the last decade, we have had ?1 billion

over the last decade, we have had ?1 country in foreign direct investment

that creates jobs. And it is thanks to access to the single market. Let

me bring in Liam Fox. There is an admission now I quite a few of those

leavers on your side that there would be a short-term shock. Why

should this country expose itself to a short-term economic shock, which

we don't know how long it would last or how deep it would be, just to

we don't know how long it would last come out of the EU? There will

obviously be a period of uncertainty, during which time the

government will have to negotiate the best terms for the UK. The

Treasury have not been consistent. In 1992, they said a collapsing

market confidence would bring a In 1992, they said a collapsing

damaging rise in interest rates. If we cut loose from the ERM, the pound

will dive. What did happen after we left the ERM? Interest rates came

way down, and inflation was stable. But interest rates shot up in the

immediate aftermath. Before we left the ERM, we had 18% interest rates.

It was the beginning of growth in our economy. But there was a shock.

There was a short-term period of uncertainty, but if we vote to leave

on the 23rd of June, we are likely not to actually leave until 2019.

The Treasury assumption is that the government is unable to get any

trade deals and there are no other factors that attract business to

Britain other than being in the EU, which is wrong. I am disappointed to

see my colleagues spouting a misused Treasury model. We normally get a

central prediction. We get a downside prediction and an upside.

All we are getting here is the downside. There is no attempt to

look at whether there might be benefits. Let me put that to

Harriet. You would usually have a variety of scenarios, best case,

worst case. In this case, it is bad or worse. Yes. Because the central

assumption is that the government wants us to remain for the good of

the economy. Then we compare all the other trade arrangements to that,

and we know that they go from worse to very much worse. So we have

chosen a cautious analysis of how bad things could be. There is a

severe shock scenario which is considerably worse than the one you

are highlighting. This is a cautious analysis about the loss of jobs and

the uncertainty that could occur if we were rash enough to do a DIY

recession. Liam Fox, on the economic arguments, do you agree that you

don't have many economists or economic institutions batting for

you when it comes to having statistics that would support your

claims of being better off outside the EU? When people are against

840,000 jobs lost in two years according to the Chancellor, youth

unemployed up by 10%... These are made up numbers. Well, can you say

that when the Treasury has put together these numbers? Well, they

are made up on assumptions. They are not facts. And your facts are? I

think this referendum is about getting control of our laws and

borders. The assumption that the only way to trade for Britain's

prosperity is inside the European Union, how a single biggest trading

partner is the US. We operate under WTO rules with the US. Why is that a

hindrance to the UK economy? Are there no economic risks to staying

in the EU, Harriet? Bearing in mind that we have had a long recession,

the treatment of Greece has been seen as very damaging by many within

the EU. Are you saying it is plain sailing if we stay within the EU? I

think what we have within the EU is the best of both worlds. We don't

have the euro, which is clearly causing a lot of difficulties, you

mentioned Greece. It has been difficult for many countries in the

southern Mediterranean. So we don't have that, and we do have access to

the single market, which is 500 million customers, tariff free, for

our UK economy. So we have the best of both worlds in terms of the

economic arrangements. We will not be drawn into any Eurozone bailouts.

It is a very good outcome, and none of the alternatives, particularly

the WTO arrangements, would create anything other than a huge economic

crisis, with no agreement from the leavers as to what they want.

Is it edifying, and correct for the Treasury that it is coming out so

firmly on one side of the debate? I am so sorry, I am going to ask David

Lammy. It would be extraordinary if the

Treasury of the country did not do its best to come to a measured view.

Liam concedes that there would be uncertainty. The question for the

British public, at a time when there are more northern young people

coming to London because there aren't jobs in the north, when

growth is 0.4%, where public borrowing was ?91 billion last year.

The economy is fragile. Of course, if you exited, there would be a

shock and there are consequences. They have laid back out. Liam has

said there is a period of uncertainty.

If you are unemployed comic young, in the north of Britain,

manufacturing sluggish, it is not fine, it is deeply worrying. There

is a risk attached. It would be the have-nots hit

hardest. I do not believe that.

The collapse in the European economy as a result of the euro is causing

ever increasing numbers of young Europeans particularly from the

south to migrate to the UK. And our growth? Growth has been

great. Clearly, our growth is strong, the eurozone is very weak.

As long as there is free movement there will be increasing numbers

coming to the UK. It is the same issue, the collapse of the euro zone

economy. The very low levels of growth, massive and implement, 50%

of young Spaniards unemployed. Most of them came, the biggest numbers,

to the UK. We are not immune. Our budgetary

contribution is dependent on how our economy is growing in relation to

the rest of the EU. The more of British taxpayers's

money will go to Brussels. On the issue of Turkey, are you

clear about written using its veto if the issue of Turkey, Turkish

accession, came up. Certainly it would if it came up

accession, came up. today. There are 27 other countries

who think along those lines. I grew up in Cyprus and ancestors Cyprus

will veto Turkish membership. I don't think that is an issue likely

to arise in any of our lifetimes. You think it is as far away as that.

British foreign policy is clear it is something that should be and

would be considered? British foreign policy for a number

of decades has been to welcome countries that wanted to come,

liberal, open democracies with free press, mature economies, into better

trading arrangements. I think that has been something that has enhanced

economic progress across the continent and social progress. But

it is clear to everyone not only do we have a veto in

it is clear to everyone not only do membership, but lots of other

countries do. membership, but lots of other

They are nowhere near ready. Should David Cameron stop

They are nowhere near ready. Should about how he would welcome Turkish

accession? It is clear this has been brought

into the campaign discussions as the reddest of red herrings.

into the campaign discussions as the Lammy was saying is correct, the

decision on the 23rd of June is Lammy was saying is correct, the

in the UK. We have published an analysis showing there would be

500,000 job losses, many across the regions. That

500,000 job losses, many across the will vote to Remain.

Speaking on the half of the Government, as a Government

minister, she Government, as a Government

Turkish accession today. Government, as a Government

It is a hypothetical question, as you know. They

It is a hypothetical question, as secured one out of

It is a hypothetical question, as you know, it is not an issue even on

the table. Thank you very much.

As you can probably tell, it's going to be a big week

of the highlights, and a few other stories that might

This campaign's already got more buses than Piccadilly Circus.

But, today, two more are revving their engines.

Nigel Farage hops aboard the Ukip referendum bus.

And comedian Eddie Izzard takes to the road in support

MPs will continue to debate last week's Queen's Speech.

And, on Tuesday, they'll be talking about the controversial subjects

On Wednesday, at Stormont, new ministers are expected to be

appointed to the Northern Ireland Assembly, following the elections

And Business Secretary Sajid Javid is expected to be in Mumbai,

ahead of a board meeting where we may find out more

about the potential buyers for Tata Steel and its

On Thursday, the BBC's first referendum debate gets underway,

with Victoria Derbyshire hosting an event for younger

And, on Friday, restrictions come into force preventing the Government

It's known as purdah, and means big announcements,

like today's warning from the Treasury,

We're joined now by Lucy Fisher from The Times, and Jason Groves

We think they may be the last political journalists in Westminster

not to be sent away on a battle bus of some description!

They had a lucky escape. What impact will purge have? It will

be a very interesting time. The Government have planned for this. We

have seen the main cost benefit analyses come out like the Treasury

document, a week before this starts. The effects will last. Now these

figures are out, we will be talking about them into that period.

Will we notice any real difference? In the campaign, we will. Far fewer

of these documents. The reason we have seen this Oleg is because the

postal ballots go out on Friday. Both sides are clear these documents

do have a short-term impact on the poles and are hoping to make the

most it. Let us talk about Tory infighting,

Liam Fox and Harrods Baldwin representing different sides of the

argument. Lucy, is it getting difficult to see

that reconciliation in a cabinet of all the talents being put together

after 23rd of June. If we presume that Remain wins,

because if Brexit wins I don't think Cameron and Osborne won't survive.

It will be difficult to see how the Conservative Party comes back

together. There are two issues. The first is

the cabinet. The many ministers on the pro-Brexit site, it is hard for

us to see a way back. Penny Morduant suggested the Prime Minister needs

to build trust with voters after the Panama papers and concerns about his

finances. It is difficult to see how she will survive.

The Government will need a clear at reshuffle. Some who have been loyal

on the Brexit side like Chris Grayling who hasn't really

criticised Government policy, he is likely to remain.

On the second issue, policy issues will need to reunite people. Like

Trident. Or keep to uncontroversial policies

like that is in the Queen's Speech. David Cameron has said it would be

an opportunity post June the 23rd, to bring together both sides. You

would need to give some big jobs if Remain were to win, to those who had

campaigned to leave? If anything, Lucy is optimistic

about what will happen after June 23.

It will be extraordinarily difficult to bring the party back together. It

is quite possible the Prime Minister will face a vote of no confidence

from his own MPs. I think he would win that. But he will have to face

the fact 80 of them want him gone. With a majority of 12, it is

difficult to do anything even vaguely controversial.

He will try to patch things up by giving people like Boris Johnson a

good job. I think his prospects for governing

in the longer term are going to be damaged.

What about the papers? In terms of finding it difficult to decide which

way to go? I think we know which way most

papers fall today. A new Reuters Institute study showing 45% of

articles in the last two months have been for Brexit, 27 cents for

Remain. It is not clear from the methodology

how that works. The way the papers are covering it

is interesting. The leading world figures,

institutions, are on one side, Remain, largely.

For the Daily Mail, the Times newspaper, we have two slightly

adjust to that bias towards the biggest Jewish and is being behind

Remain, to give some providence to the Brexit debate. We need to do our

fact checks. Thank you to both of you.

Now, yesterday, the Prime Minister said the Conservative Party had "not

done anything wrong" over its expenses at last

may have been "mis-declared" or "left out".

A number of police forces are investigating whether tens

of thousands of pounds spent campaigning in 29 marginal seats

should have been declared locally rather than centrally.

I am very confident that the Conservative Party

is gripping this with the chairman, Andrew Feldman.

Lots of political parties have these bus tours.

Buses that go around different constituencies, and that

But this is all now in conversation with the electoral commission

and these other investigations, so we should let that

But I'm confident the idea of a bus that is a national bus that

visits constituences, the Labour Party has done that,

Well, yesterday, the SNP MP Pete Wishart wrote

to the Metropolitan Police, to call for a wider investigation

into whether the Conservatives attempted to subvert

the Representation Of The People Act.

And Pete Wishart joins us now from Dundee.

There are already ten separate investigations into the Conservative

Party's election expenses, what is the point of another one?

Those ten investigations are right and proper and will take their due

course. What I have asked for is the

Conservative Party as a national outfit to be investigated by the

Metropolitan Police. We know this was organised, these battle buses,

accommodation expenses, what we have to see if if there was a systematic

attempt to try to pass off candidate is the future as national

expenditure. The Prime Minister has conceded this. He tried to say this

was a minor, trifling issue of something left out. We are talking

about the integrity of an electoral system to make sure elections are

fair. It looks like because of the party have broken those laws.

There is some admission of administrative error which is not

the same as what you are suggesting, a deliberate intent. Do you not have

confidence in the police investigations because they will be

looking at exactly that? The current police investigations

will be looking at local issues, CAD itched expenditure in particular

constituencies. I want something different, for the Conservative

Party to be looked at. It is clear from the Prime Minister yesterday

that the law was not adhered to. This is not an optional extra, this

is a fundamental exercise in ensuring the integrity of our

elections. Something has definitely gone on. There is a concession from

the Conservative Party. Let us leave the police to look at this

the Conservative Party. Let us leave Do you know what form the

investigation will take? I wrote to them yesterday.

investigation will take? Not yet. We are looking at several

cases. I think this is on a par with the cash for honours which blighted

the Tony Blair Government. An attempt to dismiss casually the way

the law should be applied in these attempt to dismiss casually the way

things. This has been bubbling away for such a long time. I

things. This has been bubbling away the statements from the Government

and we have heard nothing. Let us put that. Similar to a cash

for honours scandal. We are talking about a large number of marginal

seats. We don't know about a large number of marginal

might or might not have changed that result. The

might or might not have changed that reason. If it is found the party has

overspent or declared local spending at a national level in order to push

their campaign locally, what would you say?

The party was always clear you say?

basic issue it believed it was operating from the rules and having

a national bus operating from the rules and having

promoting candidates in those constituencies, promoting the

Government's Central case. The electoral commission is looking at.

There are police force is looking into individual candidates and their

returns come in each individual is responsible for that. The

Metropolitan Police have better things to do dealing with crime than

an SNP political stunt given these investigations are underway.

You don't think it is important for the Metropolitan Police to pursue?

It is important that these investigations take their course.

Except that they are focusing on whether expenses came under the

national battle bus. There is also a question mark over accommodation

costs that could have been put under the national costings total. That

would also be against the rules. That is what the Metropolitan Police

would look at, whether it was centrally controlled in terms of

directing expenses locally to the national budget. The Conservative

Party admitted that those figures should have been declared. They have

gone to the electoral commission and the electoral commission will make a

judgment on that and whether rules were infringed. In fact, the actual

number would not have made difference to the overall accounts.

But why, when these investigations are going on, involve the

Metropolitan Police? It is a waste of money and a political stunt. I

will come back to you in a moment, Pete Wishart. But first, isn't it

always the case that parties blur the distinction between what is

local and what is centralised spending in elections? No. Actually,

we have really hard rules about election expenses. And it is because

we do not want political parties buying elections, spending billions

like we see in the United States. If you look at the last general

election result, the real conversation was the Lib Dem

collapse. If you look at these marginals, many in the south-west,

the accusation is that these elections were stolen. This is a

very serious inquiry. It should have much more discussion in the

Westminster village. Yes, of course the Met should look at what went on.

And what about labour battle buses? Should the police investigate

whether Labour party used a battle bus? At the moment, there is no

suggestion of labour fraud. There is a suggestion in 29 seats that you

"mis-declared" your spending. That is a serious act queues Asian and it

would go to the Conservatives -- that is a serious accusation. They

are allegations. Before we let you go, these accusations fly on all

parties. It has been alleged that Nicola Sturgeon's helicopter tour

included some local campaigning. Are you confident that the costs were

properly declared? Listen, I want David Cameron to come to Scotland...

Are you confident it was properly declared? They're always what if

questions. This is about the fact that the Conservatives bust loads of

conservative actors in and tried to pass that off as local spending. The

cavalier attitude of Liam Fox and the Conservative Party on this, I

think, does a great disservice to the many people throughout this

country who are concerned about this, who are looking at

Conservative Brexit election results and think they might have been

bought. -- now looking at Conservative election results and

think they might have been bought. Now to Austria, where presidential

elections are on a knife-edge. The job is mainly a ceremonial one,

but the contest is being closely watched because it could see

the election of the EU's All the direct votes have been

counted in the contest between Norbert Hofer

of the far-right Freedom Party and Alexander Van Der Bellen,

the former leader It now rests on the hundreds

of thousands of postal votes, the result of which will be

announced his evening. Let's get the latest

from our correspondent What is the latest? We are still

waiting for those postal votes to be counted. Austria is waiting to see

who the next incumbent will be of the presidential palace behind me.

Whatever the result, whether it be president turns out to be the far

right candidate Norbert Hofer or Alexander Van Der Bellen of the

Green Party, this vote has shown how deeply split Austria is. Those who

feel they want to go in a more nationalist and Eurosceptic

direction, people who are worried about the influx of migrants because

of the migrant crisis, and those who support the green candidate, who say

they want to be more open to Europe, they want a more federal system and

our sympathies are with the migrants who have come in. On Norbert Hofer,

you talked about in nationalist platform. Has that made up his

campaign platform? Is that what he has been talking about? Very much

so, but it is not just about the migrant crisis. A lot of observers

here say it is about the failure of the centre, the and parties that

have dominated politics here for many decades. Their messages are not

reverberating with the population any more. There has been a lot of

concern about what people see as failure to move forward on key

reforms here, and there is also a debate about what it means to be

part of Europe. Go on. This could be a signal for the rest of Europe,

because there are other populist nationalist movements that are

watching this result closely. No doubt the BBC will report on that

result later. Now, have you heard

of an iceberg home? It's not a house where the central

heating isn't working, but the trend in certain

parts of the country - but particularly in the capital -

for extending homes under the ground, with the extra space

used for private cinemas, Not everyone's a fan,

including the journalist I have lived in London's

Notting Hill, famous for its communal gardens,

ice cream coloured stucco terraces, and celebrity residents

like Richard Curtis and, most recently, my newest neighbour,

Hugh Grant, for three decades. Many of the houses are

delicate, Jerry-built, But not even media moguls' mansions

are big enough for some. The Royal Borough Of Kensington

And Chelsea receives hundreds in my book, to transform properties

like this into bigger, deeper houses, by excavating

deep underground, sometimes increasing the number

of floors by two or three storeys. We are living in the age

of the double or triple basement, the "iceberg house",

and the neighbours from hell. I don't blame residents who want

to make the most of their space, and live in airless,

subterranean lairs like trolls. But there is a world of difference

in a householder making improvements or creating an extra room,

than there is in a property owner creating an iceberg house

where there is more below These houses are simply quite

unsuitable for deep, subterranean excavations,

and all the attendant noise, traffic movements, disruption,

structural damage, and environmental impacts they cause for up to years

at a time. Of course, home owners should

have the right to do what they want, And they were framed over 100 years

ago, when nobody even thought This means councils

are powerless to refuse repeated It is time for a national planning

framework to ban almost all deep excavation in built-up areas,

otherwise this is just going to be # Our house, in the

middle of our street.# And Rachel Johnson joins

us here in the studio. Would you agree that this is a

fairly niche issue? Not really. They're almost 4500 of these

basements planned or being dug They're almost 4500 of these

London, which is a lot, especially if one is next door to you. How

disruptive is it? Incredibly disruptive. As you saw in the little

piece I did, opposite my house there is a basement that is being dug

underneath the middle of the street and it has been going on for two

years so far. Sadiq Khan, though, has said he is going to row back on

this. Various bills have been put through the Lords, but nothing has

happened. You talk of setting up a national framework. Is that

necessary, or do you think you could deal with it locally with issues

where it is really afflicting one part of the country? I would like to

see the presumption being against anything that goes below one story.

It is not only incredibly disruptive, it is also structurally

very dodgy, because it means you are honeycomb in the subsoil. The

average depth of Ireland and foundation is something like 12

inches, nothing. -- the average depth of a London foundation. Sorry

to be so boring, but you don't know what you are doing in terms of

sewerage and getting other services disrupted. Do you have any sympathy

for Rachel's pursuit of this issue? I think there is a tension here

between the right of individuals to do what they like with their own

property, against the impact on public utility. And that needs to be

resolved. There need to be clear guidelines on that and if we don't

have guidelines in our planning law, because it was never considered when

those laws were being introduced, they do need to be updated. We need

to have clarity so that people know where they are and so that people

who might want to invest in building a big basement know where they would

stand, as do the neighbours. So if clarity is required, we should have

it. But our iceberg home is a big problem in your constituency? It has

never, ever come up in Tottenham! But I do agree with Rachel that

there is a collective hole. You cannot just have people willy-nilly

digging down. This is a problem of the super wealthy. It is a problem

sometimes of the overseas buyers in the London market. So it does need

regulation, but it is not number one. Is it also a problem of people

in London not being able to afford to move, because it is cheaper to

stay where you are, and is that a fault of government policy? I don't

think people in Kensington who are building two floors down have a big

problem with their family incomes. You may be right, but it is an

issue. If people are not moving, do you blame things like the changes to

stamp duty? They have also made it easier to begin prudence on your

house. So there are two reasons not to move, higher stamp duty, and I

have relaxed the laws surrounding things like extensions and

basements. I want to give credit to Kensington and Chelsea. Then number

of applications has halved since they limited development is to only

one for underground. There was one guy next to the French ambassador

who was doing a 6-storey extension with the carousel for his vintage

Ferraris. We can only dream! Thank you for coming in.

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

The question was who, according to this morning's Times,

Tony Blair, Steve Hilton, Raul Castro or Ed Miliband? What do you

think? I am going with Ed Miliband. You might be right. Do you think

that is a good idea? Ed Miliband, who lost the last election, helping

Jeremy Corbyn? Give the guy a job. He is talented, why not? What is

your reaction? I think Jeremy Corbyn can't get enough advisers.

The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.

I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories

People were afraid of her political convictions -

Dear Mama, last night we had nearly four inches of rain.

People can be seen going about fetching bread and other things

on floating sofas or wooden bedsteads.