25/05/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The Remain campaign has been handed yet more ammunition for its claims


that leaving the EU would harm the economy.


This time, from on highly respected think-tank which says it could mean


We'll be taking stock of all George Osborne's scary stories


and asking if they're more fairytale or just grim economic reality.


Speaking of George Osborne, he'll be standing in for David Cameron


We'll have all the action live from noon.


We've previously heard from military leaders backing Remain.


Today, we'll talk to one of the retired senior officers


claiming that a vote to leave will aid our defence and security.


And, as both sides of the referendum debate reach out to young voters,


former DJ Mike Reed will join us to discuss what's gone wrong


All that in the next hour and a half.


And with us for the whole of the programme today,


speaking of scary things, it's the cabinet office minister Matt Hancock


Gisela is supporting a Leave vote in the EU referendum


and is well known for disagreeing with her party's position


on some of the big issues of the day.


Matt is supporting Remain and, well, let's just say


he's not exactly famous for attacking his own government.


So, if you're tuning in today hoping for a break from the EU referendum,


then prepare to be thoroughly disappointed.


There are plenty of stormy exchanges taking place between both sides


on everything from Turkey joining the EU to the NHS to farming.


But it's also been another week in which the Leave camp


has been buffeted by some big economic warnings.


This morning, the Institute for Fiscal Studies,


a group that's usually treated with respect by most politicians,


has weighed in and joined the likes of the IMF, the OECD, and the Bank


of England in saying that a vote to leave would harm the economy.


And it comes, of course, after a series of warnings


from David Cameron and George Osborne.


Jo is going to remind us of some of their most frightening assessments.


Yes, with all these bleak economic forecasts around,


you can see why critics have accused the Remain camp of relying on scary


Last month, George Osborne looked far into the future and warned


a vote for Brexit could leave families ?4,300 worse off by 2030.


And this week, voters may have been spooked by his new Treasury report


claiming a vote to leave would tip the UK into


a year-long recession, costing, he said, 820,000 jobs.


Homeowners may have felt a chill down their spine when the Chancellor


said house prices could fall by up to 18%.


David Cameron then raised the spectre of more expensive


holidays as early as this summer, by as much as ?230.


But probably the scariest of scare stories from the Prime Minister


was his claim that Brexit could lead to another war in Europe.


The Remain camp reject claims they're relying on fear,


and accuse Leave campaigners of preferring conspiracy theories.


Let's see how the story ends in just under a month.


So, those are the economic warnings coming from Numbers 10 and 11.


And, this morning, they've been able to add to their arsenal the verdict


on Brexit of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which said


a vote to leave could lead to two more years of austerity.


In 2019 as it says it does, that would require another ?5 billion of


public spenting cuts, 5 billion pud of security cuts and tax increases.


Most likely, what the Government will decide to do is let's have


another year or two of austerity. This is just adding a year or two to


the decade long us astery. Something we can cope with but another year of


spending cuts to come It came on the Treasury short-term predictions of


what would happen if we leave. It said if we left the EU we would fall


into recession. How deep does it say that recession would be? It says


there will be a recession, as in more than two quarters of negative


economic growth. How bad would it be? It would be bad for people who


lost their jobs. We lost 7% of our GDP after the 2008 financial crash.


How much is the report predicting this time? The report predicts the


recession would be four quarters long. And that growth would go


negative. By how much? Well, there's numbers for each of the four


quarters. How much are they? Between 0% and minus 1%. No, it's not


actually. It is actually. The central forecast is that four the


period you predict a recession, the loss of GDP is.1% per quarter. I'll


repeat that again. 0.1%. And what about... 0.1% negative involves


hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs. People losing


their livelihoods. The key is this, it's not just the Treasury. The Bank


of England said there could be a technical recession. You say


hundreds of thousands of jobs. We only lost several hundred,000 jobs


when we lost 7% of our GDP after 2008. So, why would a 0.1%, I say


again, 0.1%, fall in GDP in any one quarter mean the loss of hundreds of


thousands of jobs? Because that's what the Treasury forecast says. I


know that. I'm asking you why. Because when the he he goes into


recession, people lose their jobs. Not by 0.1%. Yes. Let's move on.


This.1% fall in GDP for four quarters, but it's 0.1% each


quarter, that also assumes that the Government and the Bank of England


take no remedial action, do nothing to counter recession, correct?


That's at assumption. No, you're wrong. What is the assumption? It


assumes the autofiscal stabilisers will work. The Government's policy.


But the Government will do nothing else? It is backed up by the Bank of


England, the national institute, by all of the others. Of course, they


all use roughly the same model. No, they don't have the same model. It


has nothing to do with the questions I'm asking. Let's stick with this.


On the contrary, Andrew. Can we get it established, the 0.1% fall in GDP


in a quarter does assume other than the automatic stabilisers which the


Government doesn't do anything about, that it assumes no change in


fiscal policy or interest rate policy by the bank: Correct? If you


allow me to answer the question which I was aeh answering before you


inTerre uppeded last time, the Bank of England interest rates are close


to zero. Fiscal policy is constrained by high debt levels. The


automatic stabilisers are the fiscal response we, as a Government, are


allowed to operate. This is a response. I want to come back to


this point about jobs. You seem to be dismissing an idea of a recession


because you think a recession won't have a big impact. It will have a


significant impact. That's the core message. I'm simply trying to work


out why a recession which, pie your own report's prediction, would be


0.1% a quarter for four quarters would lead to a huge collapse in


house prices and increase in jobs when far deeper recessions have not


done the same. Not an increase in jobs. A loss of jobs. That's the


damage I'm worried about. Why would the bank not cut interest rates?


They are already at 00.5%. They are lower in Japan, the central bank,


lower in Sweden, lower in Switzerland. Why not cut interest


rates further? Why would it not increase QE. Name a recession we've


ever had, even one as smalls you're predicting where there was no


response from the Government or central bank. Neither you nor I


could name a recession we chose to go into by voting for something we


don't have to. We can. Your last Government. The European exchange


rate mechanism. Crucially where we go in with interest rates at already


record low levels. It comes back to this point, there is a big economic


risk. When you put screens up like that, the big book of scary story,


right, this is about worrying about people's livelihoods and people's


jobs. It is my duty, because I fear that consequence of a Brexit vote,


it's my duty to set out that what I think will happen and protect the


British people from it. Everybody thinks, the very least in the


short-term, there would be problems for the economy. Everybody. I ask


you, if that's the case. Why, before Christmas, did the Prime Minister


say it would be perfectly all right outside the EU. Why did he call this


referendum if it's such a clear case. You're answering my question


by asking a different question. I'm saying to you, it is a reasonable


concern, the short-term. The Prime Minister may be entirely wrong.


That's not what I'm asking you. It is a reasonable concern, given that


every major economic authority says there will be a short-term set back


to the economy. That's a concern? Let me meet that. It is a concern.


It is really not helpful if you have a Prime Minister who spends his


whole time talking down the markets. He's partly creating some of the


problems which you are warning us of. What I find extraordinary, even


the Prime Minister's best efforts to say the pound will decline, the


pound hasn't been declining. So, what's your problem? No, what's your


problem? The problem saying he's talking down the economy, he's not


managing to do it. What's your problem? Back to the question I


asked you. What are people to make when they vote on June 23rd


wheneverry authority says broadly the same thing, different in scale,


but if we vote to leave, there will, at the very least, be short-term set


back to the economy? It is a concern that's been pulled together by a


Prime Minister when even when negotiating was lining up the big


businesses. What you will have, just as you go into the again Lal


election, there are periods when democratic decisions, the outcome's


not clear. You create a small period of uncertainty. Then the markets


will recover. Let he in ask you this. Why does your side of the


argument continue to use this figure that we, the country, send ?350


million a week as our membership fee to the European Union when you know


that's not true? The ONS pink book says our annual contribution to the


EU institutions is ?19.1 billion. Why are you shaking your head?


Because the ONS themselves said that was misleading. Today, the IFS said


it's absurd. Do you agree with the IFS or not? Is If the ONS wishes to


change its column... They called that statistic misleading. The IFS


today said it is absurd. The only response to that is to attack the


ONS from the Leave side. You're quite right, it appears in the


accounts. That's an accountancy matter. You know, as well as I do,


we don't sent that amount of money. It does not physically leave London


and go to Brussels. You know that. What I also know... You do know it?


If you want to say the ONS should represent our annual contribution


differently... It does do that. It takes the abatement off. Let me


finish. The abatement which is continually up-renegotiation in 2020


and it is reducing... Just take a deep breath and wake a moment. It is


?5 billion at the moment. The second is with very strict conditions how


we spend it. Our point is you can take control. If you vote Leave


leave, you take control over that and decide how to spend it. Sir


Andrew dill not is the chair of the UK statistics authority. He says, I


note the use of the ?350 million figure. It appears to be a gross


figure which does not take into account the rebate or other flows


from the UK from the EU to the UK public sector. They come to about


?4.5 billion. Farming and regional subsidies. City initiatives which


come from here and get finance from the EU. Without further


explanations, I think these statements of misleading. It is the


grows contribution. Ever since the days of Margaret Thatcher, roughly


speaking for every ?2 we pay in, we get 1 back in conditions. Do you


accept we don't send the rebate. They send it back? The proper name


is not the rebate. It is the abatement. So, out of the ?18


billion a year we send, I speak roughly in these figures, we take


the 5 billion abatement off and send ?13 billion which is not ?350


million a week. Can we agree on these facts? Can we also agree...


No, just agree on that first? The abatement is paid in retrospect and


continuously open to renegotiation. Not continuously. Now and then. Your


last Government gave it a bit of it away. It is roughly ?5 billion at


the moment? I'm talking about the entire envelope we we would have


decisions to spend the money again. That's the difference. This morning.


The Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at these questions. They said


for the 350 million figure to be right, we'd have to assume we no


longer paid anything in but still got the rebate or abatement back.


They describe that is an absurd. Do you agree that the Institute for


Fiscal Studies is a grown-up economic organisation that's


credible? I do. It also receives 11% of its


funding from the EU. If 11% of my salary came from one source, despite


the respect with which it was held, people would have a right to say it


had been bought. I'm saying it is serious but we ought to knowledge


the money is coming from. You get ?26,000 a year from a source that


gets funding from a European source? Are you compromised? My funding


comes from that. Why has the Treasury or the government not as


the Office for Budget Responsibility to look at the effect of leaving?


Because by statute the Office for Budget Responsibility is required


only to look at existing government policy and government policy is to


remain within the European Union. That is why it can't. All the


shows... Treasury forecasts are reliable and you want to give people


a fair choice. Why would you not ask the very body that was set to


overcome the buyers of Treasury forecasts to look at and then the


British people could make a choice. I have just answered. I statute it


looks at government policy. You set up the OBR, Mr Osborne explained


that he had to do this because the Treasury forecasts were so


unreliable. Now you are expecting us to believe them. These are Treasury


forecasts. It is not just the Treasury, it is the National


Institute, the Bank of England... The Treasury has made a forecasts


and you have set up a separate body because it is a unreliable. Why


should we believe it? What I'm asking you to do is believe the


combination of the Bank of England, I've gone through this over and over


again. I have made that point. When not trying to hide that. One final


question, the ISS implies that there could be another two years of


austerity if we leave the EU. We've already had six years under your


government and there is at least another two or three coming anyway


whether we stay inside or outside. Why would it make much difference?


If you're attacking the integrity of the ISS, you're losing in this


campaign. That's what we're saying. Their campaign is in chaos and they


are losing the argument. Given your government's record on prolonged


asperity with more to come, why would another two years make that


much of a difference? I don't want to see jobs lost or fixing the books


any more difficult than it is and I don't want to see another recession.


That is what all these different economic groups are same would


happen. Over to you. Hanley more days to go?


Now, there's no David Cameron at PMQs today,


he's off to a meeting of the G7 in Japan,


and George Osborne is standing in opposite Angela Eagle for Labour.


Following last year's General Election, the chancellor was seen


as something of a shoo-in to take over as Prime Minister


But even before this bruising referendum campaign,


his reputation had suffered something of a knock


From next year, we will reduce the level of earnings at which a


household tax credits and universal credits start to be withdrawn. Stop


this wrong-headed and ill walk-through piece of legislation.


These proposals latently threatened damage to millions of our fellow


citizens. I've listened to the concerns, I a and understand them,


the simplest thing to do is not to phase the changes in but avoid them


altogether. To give more power to counties and new Mayers, we are


giving them the powers to set Sunday trading hours in their areas. The


eyes, to the right. 317. The knows to the left, 318. We will be


spending more in real terms supporting disabled people than at


any point during the last Labour government. That is deeply unfair


and that unfairness is damaging to the government and the party and


damaging to the public. We will not be going ahead to the changes to PIP


that had been put forward. We're going to score complete the task of


setting schools free from local education bureaucracy and were going


to do it in this Parliament. We have decided it is not necessary to take


blanket powers to convert good schools in strong local authorities


into academies at this time. Nicky Morgan mayor. Why has he got


it wrong on so many occasions and been forced to change policy? The


government has a clear direction and we have put forward a huge amount of


policies to get there. Why has he had to U-turn on so many key pieces


of legislation. Tax credits, changes to PIP, Sunday trading and


academies? You set out a whole series across the government. They


are all from George Osborne. George Osborne announced the academies. An


academies, our aim is to complete the academies Asian process. They


are clearly the best way to drive up standards. My question is, why has


George Osborne got it wrong on key pieces of legislation and been


forced to dramatically U-turn? The goal on academies is exactly the


right one. The government wanted to Compal schools to become academies


and now they are not. He's had to change on tax credits and disability


payments, things he really wanted to do on adjustments on welfare and now


he can't. Why does he get it wrong? What we're doing is setting out


long-term goals and then there are lots of different ways to get there.


That is part of how a government best operates. To say, the most


important thing is what we're doing on the economy. Millions of jobs


being created, schools, academies, there are roots of getting there.


You set out your goals very clearly and work your way there. You admit


he has had to change his route and some of the goals he's not going to


meet in the way he wanted to. Why is that? Dissent on the Tory


backbenches? Obviously, when you have a majority of 12, it is


different to operating under a larger majority. For two decades,


Britain is used to majorities of 50 or more. It is his party on most of


these issues that is rebelling. In one case it was the house of lords.


As you say, in one case but there is a lot of dissent. Is it because


there is and trust in George Osborne? Has he lost credibility? He


can't persuade people. Academies is a very good example, the goal is


clear, all schools becoming academies. Actually, the change we


have made is that we don't Compal schools to become academies where


local authorities... But you're not going to do that now. Belo the goal


is to get a full academies. Just 11% believe George Osborne is


up to the job of running the country. Do you think he has lost


his credibility as a result of these U-turns? No, I will tell you why, he


can demonstrate on the economy, on job creation, an making sure we can


turn around the deficit and bring that down, on all of these things,


there is a clear direction and sticking to that direction, despite


things that are thrown at Oz is what that is all about. Will we watch


Tory MPs cheering him on even those who want to campaign to leave? We


will see. We are united on so many things about implementing the


manifesto on which we were elected just over a year ago. You expect him


to be cheered from the rafters? Of course. Especially because the areas


other than the European issue, and academies and academies and the tax


credits and other things they disagree with him on. He is missing


Danny Alexander. He only got through the last parliament because Danny


Alexander hold him back. Angela Eagle is up today. Will she be


brilliant. She will be brilliant. What about Jeremy Corbyn? She will


be punchier. She has had lots of practice at this.


Now, the Remain campaign yesterday launched a social media campaign


designed to reach the "Easyjet generation",


which apparently consists of young people


who take unrestricted travel around Europe for granted,


but are less likely to be registered to vote.


And as we all know if there's one thing young people love,


it's dropping the "g" from the present participle.


So the campaign's messages include: workin', earnin', makin', votin'.


and chillin', meetin', tourin', votin'.


And, as we at the Daily Politics know a thing or two


about communicating with young people


- we believe we've got as many as several viewers under 45


- we've come up with our own campaign to help explain our


Guess The Year competition to all you millennials out there.


Here it is - and I think we can all agree that


tells you how exactly how it works, no further explainin' needed.


You have an American accent when you. Drop the GE.


you too can soon be sippin' from a Daily Politics mug.


All you have to do is tell us when this happened.


I have resigned from the Cabinet and I will make a full statement today.


As trading started, there was plenty of end users for the beginning.


To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug,


send your answer to our special quiz email address -


Entries must arrive by 12.30 today, and you can see the full terms


and conditions for Guess The Year on our website -


You'd think I'd know it by now. I've said it about 4 million times.


There's a whole lot of tweets from young people coming in. Three now.


It's coming. It's coming up to midday here,


just take a look at Big Ben yes, Prime Minister's


Questions is on its way. And that's not all,


Laura Kuenssberg is here. The Prime Minister is in Japan. He


is big in Japan, I think. Do you remember that song? He is with G-7


finance ministers. When you say it is the B team. Some of the viewers


might think it is the 18. The last time we saw Angela Eagle and George


Osborne go together it was a very punchy session with lots of gags,


quite effective. Mr Osborne on the ropes a little bit. She took him to


task over the flooding. Also, guess what, over the EU really go see.


There could be a bit of that for George Osborne to handle. She might


want to talk about Google. George Osborne said that it was a


successful deal. Whereas, the French authorities have raided the Google


offices in the last couple of days in what people think is a different,


far braver approach. Isn't the answer likely to be, I've got 130


million, how much of the French got? Or, actually, under a Labour


government, Google had to a tiny amounts. It was in start-up phase


them. It's hard to tell what's going on in France because they are all on


strike. 25% of petrol stations have no petrol. There has been an air


strike and an air traffic control strike. It's hard to tell who is


doing the raiding and who's doing the striking. Interesting to see if


the much tougher tactics of the French get more in the end than Mr


Osborne has got. When we talk about cracking down on tax avoidance and


tax evasion which are very different things, are you better to have


conversations behind closed doors and work with people, or other


countries in the hope of getting somewhere or if you take a


sledgehammer to crack a nut do people pack of two other countries


using their better lawyers and accountants and better resources


than the tax authorities have. That's always been a difficult


balance to strike. It's something that Jeremy Corbyn feel strongly


about. He would argue that the government hasn't taken a tough


enough approach. I'm sure that many members of the government would


argue that they have moved significantly forward but tried to


take a more cooperative approach rather than just using a


sledgehammer. Maybe a French sledgehammer could do the job


better. It is tied up with European tax rules which for a long while


encouraged these big multinationals to position their intellectual


property rights mainly in Luxembourg or Dublin and that allowed them to


say they were paying zillions to use the name. And inside the single


market people can move their money and business around very easily. In


many cases, economists would say it was a big benefit. In this case,


perhaps the opposite. Someone who is trying to bring this into the


European debate as he did a couple of weeks ago, Gordon Brown is trying


to put forward easier crackdowns on tax baddies, if we say inside the EU


and losing that if we leave. Didn't he invent half the rules that people


have used to avoid tax. THE SPEAKER: There's a process to


follow. Wait his turn! Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, as always.


The Prime Minister's attending the G7 in Japan. I've been asked to


reply on his MAFF. This morning I'd meetings in ministerial colleagues.


In addition to my duties in this House, I will have meetings again


later today. I'm sure members 07 sit will disagree. The first priority of


any Government is the defence and security of our country. Therefore,


could the Chancellor outline for me, the steps this Government is taking


to replace our Trident nuclear defence? My honourable friend is


right. The first duty of Government is to defend the country. To for


almost 70 years an independent nuclear deterrent has provided the


ultimate insurance of four freedom. We'll renew Trident deterrent,


bridge forward votes in this House. We ask MPs from all sides of the


House to support this commitment to our national security. When she


stands up, the honourable lady representing the Labour Party should


inti Kate that support today. THE SPEAKER: Angela e Eagle. Thank


you, thank you, Mr Speaker. We look forward to the vote on Trident. And


he should get on with it! Mr Speaker, given the overnight news of


the French authority's dawn raid on Google investigating allegations of


aggravated financial fraud and money laundering, does the Chancellor now


regret calling his cosy little tax deal with the same company good news


for the British taxpayer? Well, it is good news that we are collecting


money in tax from companies that paid no tax when the Labour Party


was in office. Sand she seems to forget, she was the exchequer's


secretary in the last Government. So, perhaps, when she stands up, she


can tell us whether she ever raised with the Inland Revenue at the time,


the tax affairs of Google? Mr Speaker, I think obviously the


Chancellor has done a bit more research this time. I regard that as


a compliment! Mr Speaker, I think from that answer, that the


Chancellor is far too easily satisfied with his cosy little tax.


I note that even the honourable member for Uxbridge and rice lip


labelled this cosy little deal derisory. The British public think


it's even worse. Despite all the rhetoric on his watch, the tax gap


has actually gone up. His tax deal with the Swiss raised a fraction of


the revenue he boasted that it would. And the OBR blaming the lack


of resources in Revenue Customs. So why, Mr Speaker, has he sacked


11,000 tax staff since 2010? And when is he going to give them the


resources they need to do a proper job? Well, we increased resources


for the HMRC to tackle tax evasion and avoidance. We've introdeuced a


diverted profits tax so companies like Google can't shift their


profits offshore nil. We made sure the banks pay a higher tax charge


than they ever did under the last Labour Government. I come back to


this, she was a Treasury minister, stood at this dispatch box. She's


asking me what we've done to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance. Did


she ever raise, as the exchequer secretary, the tax affairs of


Google? We should know this before she asks questions of this


Government. Mr Speaker... THE SPEAKER: Members must calm


themselves! And remain calm. Order! On both sides, they should take the


lead from the right honourable and learned gentlemen, the member for


Rushcliffe who's always sitting calm in a statistics manlike manner.


That's the way to behave. An loo eagle. We all have the greatest


respect for the Right Honourable Member for Rushcliffe. The


Chancellor of the exchequer will know the exchequer secretary deems


with taxes on vices not Google. I did my job in taxing vices when I


was in the Treasury. He will be judged on results. He's been in


office for six years. With France demanding ten times more from Google


than he is, the public will make their own judgment. Mr Speaker,


while Labour is campaigning to ensure the UK remains in the


European Union because it's the best way to defend rights at work, as


well as jobs and prosperity, the party opposite is split right down


the middle. And... Mr Speaker, it's descending into vicious acrimony.


Last week, the Employment Minister... Last week... Mr Speaker,


last week the Employment Minister called for Brexit so there could be


a bonfire of workers' rights. Does the Chancellor agree with her or


does he agree with Len McCluskey that a vote to stay in the European


Union is the best deal for Britain's workers? First of all, she confirmed


that when she was in the Treasury, she asked absolutely no questions


about the tax affairs of Google. When it comes to the European Union,


as she knows, she agree on this, I think it's better Britain remains in


the European Union. Why don't we have consensus on other issues, like


having an independent nuclear deterrent. Let's have a consensus on


supporting businesses rather than disparaging businesses. Let's have a


consensus and not piling debts on the next generation but dealing with


our deficit. Let's have a consensus the parties in this House should


have a credible economic policy. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think he's


just agreed with Len McCluskey. The former work and Spences -- Work and


Pensions Secretary said this week the Chancellor's Brexit report


should not be believed by anyone. He branded the Chancellor Pinnochio


with his nose just getting longser and longer with every fib.


Meanwhile, the General Secretary to the TUC said the Trish remember's


report caves us half a million good reasons to stay in the European


Union. Who should the public listen to? I don't think it's any great


revelation that different Conservative MPs have different


views on the European Union. That's why we're having a referendum.


Because this issue does divide parties and families and friends.


And we made a commitment in our manifesto that the British people


would decide this question. I might just observe, if she wants to talk


about divisions in parties, whilst she's sitting here, the leader of


the Labour Party is sitting at home wondering whether to impeach the


former member of the Labour Party for war crimes. Mr Speaker, I'm glad


he agrees with Francis O'Grady. A pitty he can't get half his


backbenches and his own party to agree with him. Given that the


former Work and Pensions Secretary has just called the Prime Minister


disingenuous and the former Tory Mayor of London called him


Demmeented, I -- demeanted, I wouldn't talk about Labour splits.


He needs to get his own house in order. Following the second


omnishambles budget this year, the Chancellor's approval rating have


collapse by 80 points amongst his own party. Given he seems to be


following a similar career path... Begin he seems to be following a


similar career path, isn't it time he turned to Michael Portillo for


advice? Last week, the former would be leader said of the Queen's


Speech, after 23 years of careful thought about what they would like


to do in power... Order. This question will be heard. Those


preyting away should cease doing so, it is stupid and counter-productive.


After 23 years of careful thought about what they would like to do in


power, Michael Portillo said, the answer is nothing. There is nothing


they want to do with office or power. The Government has nothing to


do, nothing to say and thinks nothing. That's what he said. But


even this nothing Queen's Speech has caused a revolt on his own


backbenches and caused another U-turn to force the Government to


defeat in its legislative programme in 92 years. Mr Speaker... Mr


Speaker, doesn't that tell you all you need to know about this Prime


Minister and Chancellor? It seems they can't even get their


backbenches to vote for them. Nothing without a fight. I tell you


what we've done in recent weeks, we've taken another million people


out of tax altogether. We have frozen fuel duty. We've cut business


rates for small businesses. We've seen the deficit fall by another ?16


billion. We delivered a record number of jobs and introduced a


national living wage. That's what we've been up to. What have the


Labour Party been up to? She talks of ewe turns. They've turned the


Labour Party from a party that gave Britain its nuclear deterrent to a


pear that wants to scrap it. A party that created the academies programme


which now wants to abolish them. A party that once courted businesses


now disparages them. The prawn cocktail offences is just plain


offensive these days. They've gone from a Labour Party that won


elections to a Labour Party that's going to go on losing though


elections. Mr Speaker, with 29 days to go


before the most important decision in this country has faced in a


generation we have a government in utter chaos, split down the middle,


at war with itself, the stakes could not be higher and yet this


government is at the mercy of its own rebel backbenchers, unable to


get their agenda through Parliament, instead of providing the leadership


the country needs they are facing a bitter proxy war over the leadership


of their party. I noticed that all of the Brexit supporters have been


banished from the front bench. CHEERING


Well, Mr Speaker... It's nice to see the Justice Secretary here. I think


the Chancellor has put the rest of his Brexit colleagues in detention.


Instead of providing the leadership the country needs they are fighting


a bitter proxy war over the leadership of their own party


instead of focusing on the national interest, they are focusing on their


narrow self-interest. We need a government that will do the best for


Britain. What we've got is a Conservative Party focused only on


themselves. CHEERING She talks about our Parliamentary


party, let's look at hers. They are like rats deserting a sinking ship.


We've got the shadow health minister wants to be the mayor for Liverpool,


the member for Bury South wants to be the mayor for Manchester. The


shadow leader wants to be the mayor for both cities. When we said we


were creating job opportunities, we didn't mean for the whole Shadow


Cabinet. They are like a Parliamentary party on day release,


are they? When the honourable lady is here, they know the member for


Islington will be back and it is four more years of hard labour.


Today we are voting on a Queens speech that delivers economic


security, protects national security, enhances life chances for


the disadvantaged, it doesn't matter who stands at the dispatch box for


the Labour Party, these days they are dismantling our defences,


wrecking our economy, burdening people with debt and in their own


report published this week called Labour Pars future, surprisingly


long, they say this, they are becoming increasingly irrelevant to


the working people of Britain. CHEERING


Thank you, Mr Speaker, what a privilege it is to be called by you.


If the Remain campaign has its way, I will have two apply to Jean-Claude


Juncker by e-mail to speak. A wonderful example of European, not


EU, cooperation. The Fuser Large is built in this country and the wings


in Germany. Whether we remain inside or outside the EU will have no


affect on this business. As the Chancellor knows, it is trade and


hard work of businessmen and women that create jobs and prosperity not


politicians and bureaucrats. It is their job is to nurture growth and


enterprise... Order! I was looking for? For a question. Does my right


honourable friend agree it is to nurture business and not make


threats against enterprise and aspiration? Icon plie agree with my


honourable friend that jobs and enterprise are created through the


ingenuity of private businesses that we should support and nurture in


this house. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Lachlan brain is seven


years old and he attends the Gaelic medium primary school in Dingwall in


the Scottish Highlands. Next week, as the Home Secretary is currently


briefing him, the home Department plans to deport him and his family


despite the fact that he arrived through a Scottish Government


initiative from the Home Office to attract people to live and work in


the region. This case has been front page news in Scotland. What does the


Chancellor have to say to his family and the community who want him to


stay? As I understand it, the family don't meet the immigration criteria.


The Home Secretary says she is very happy to write to the Aiton


honourable gentleman on the details of the specific case. This has been


going on for weeks and that frankly is not good enough. Appeals have


been made to the Home Secretary by the First Minister, the local MP,


the local MSP, the community, it is wall-to-wall across the media of


Scotland and the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly knew nothing about


it. The problem in the Highlands of Scotland is not immigration, it has


been emigration. Even at this late stage, knowing nothing about it,


speak to the Home Secretary, speak to the Prime Minister and get this


sort of -- sorted out. The Home Secretary will write on the details


of the case. Can I suggest to the Scottish Nationalists party, they


have substantial tax and enterprise powers and if they want to attract


people to the Highlands of Scotland, why don't they create an


entrepreneurial Scotland that people want to move to from the rest of the


United Kingdom where they can grow their business and have a successful


life? Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Why is the Chilcott


reported not being published before the referendum? Is it because the


Prime Minister and the Chancellor don't want the public to be reminded


how the government of the day and the establishment are prepared to


produce dodgy dossiers, make things up and distort the facts to con the


public into supporting something they otherwise wouldn't ahead of the


EU referendum? No, because it is an independent report and they decide


when to produce it. In the spirit of consensus Mr Speaker, may I say that


there are few things that unite the house more than a concentration on


the periodic reviews of the boundary commission which has been studied


with fierce intensity and covered as eyes. We do note that the electorate


of the royal Boehner of Kensington and Chelsea has declined preserver


severely -- precipitately and against all logic. Should the Prime


Minister be concerned about this and what should he be doing? I thought


he was the member of party -- parliament for Ealing. They are


drawing up the boundaries and we will see their proposals.


Will the Chancellor, Barnardo 's, the oldest children's charity


celebrating 150 years of supporting and protecting the honourable


children? Does he agree that young people need support beyond the age


of 18 to maximise life chances and that the government knew care


leavers, and which extends the duty of care to 25 is a fitting way to


build an Barnardo 's proud history of giving young people best


opportunities in life? I certainly agree with my right honourable


friend that Barnardos is a brilliant charity and we should congratulate


them on the work that they do. We have huge responsibility to the


people in the care of the state and that does not end when they are 18


years old. That's why in the Queens speech we are announcing new


measures to include support from a personal adviser until they are 25


and make sure other bodies like local authorities have care for


those people and make sure all the opportunities are brought to their


attention. It is part of the life chances strategy that lies at the


heart of the Queens speech. The Chancellor wanted a march of the


maker. Hundreds of Steelworkers are marching for their future and their


communities. Why does the government backed China's bid for market


economy status against the interests of the steelworkers? Why does he


block tariffs against the interests of steelworkers. When will he put


the interests of steelworkers ahead of his own? Of course, our thoughts


are with the and their families at very difficult time. If we take a


step back, we should all acknowledge that there is a global crisis in the


steel industry that tens of thousands of jobs have been lost


across Europe alone and many tens of thousands Billy on that. We are


taking specific action today to help Tata and the port but works and


related works across the country and the Business Secretary has been in


India with the First Minister of Wales in a cross-party effort.


Nationally, we have taken action to reduce energy charges are an energy


intensive industries, we have taken action to make sure there is more


flexibility with emission regulations, doing everything we can


to help this industry at a very difficult time including making sure


there are top tariffs on Chinese dumping and as a result on tariffs


on Rebar still, those imports are down 90%. Would the Chancellor


comment on the fact that Lord sugar has joined the government as Empress


-- enterprise are show that people are abandoning the Labour Party. And


can he confirmed that he has no plans for a sugar tax? We have hired


Lord Sugar to head enterprise and he will bring knowledge and enterprise.


Apparently, he has told the Labour Party, you're fired! I have a


14-year-old autistic constituent who got on very well at primary school


but since moving to secondary school has found them on compromising,


leaving him with special school as his only option. What will the


Chancellor do to make sure when the independent expert group looking at


initial teacher training reports back that ministers will ensure that


specific autism training performs part of their curriculum? I think


the honourable lady raises an important issue and I think she will


have a lot of sympathy from colleagues around the house. The


Education Secretary has raised her concerns and shares her concerns and


has raised the issue with the chair of the initial teacher training


review Stephen Mundie and her efforts will be to ensure that


teacher training supports children with special educational needs,


specifically autism, and will recommend how teacher training


should cover this in the report which will be published shortly. My


local clinical commissioning group are reporting on the report leading


to downgrading at Doncaster infirmary. Can we ensure that all


bands are on the table and that we must be able to compete with their


needs. Any service changes need to be made by the local NHS and they


need to be based on clear evidence that they will deliver better


outcomes for patients. It's right that these decisions are made by


local clinicians rather than politicians but they do need to meet


the key tests set out. Public and patient engagement, support from GP


commissioners, be based on clinical evidence and consider patient


choice. I would expect the local NHS to consider all these in any


decision they reach. The House of Commons library estimates that 4.9


million UK citizens live or work in other countries and yet week in,


week out I meet constituents from overseas that cannot get visas,


residences or citizenship here and the whole of Scotland is outrage at


the threat of deportation for the Brain family. What is the difference


between an economic migrant and an expat? The honourable gentleman and


straights that we do have border controls in this country and we do


have immigration rules that need to be complied with. That is a very


important part of the European Union Schengen area agreements that we are


not part. It is of the special status we have in the European


Union. Would the Chancellor join me in welcoming the crew of HMS Duncan,


the last of the type 45 destroyers presently moored in London for the


Battle of Jutland commemorations. Would he support the work that the


all-party group is doing to ensure all Armed Forces and their families


have the very best housing that we can offer them? I absolutely join


her in welcoming the crew of HMS Duncan and celebrating all they do


on behalf of this country to keep us safe and to represent Britain around


the world and of course we return them a duty of care and that is


enshrined in government. That didn't exist before we came into government


and we are honouring our promise to honour the armed services and our


Navy. This government wants to raise tuition fees even higher. Why has


the Chancellor changed his view since 2003 when he said that you


wish and fees were attacks on learning? Back then, the Labour


Party were voting for Jewish and fees and the difference is, we


learned our lesson and they have forgotten theirs. -- tuition fees.


This has given us the best universities in the world and the


record number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. They have


an incredible policy to abolish tuition fees that they introduced


and create a ?10 billion hole in the public finances. It's time they were


straight with students that it is completely unavoidable.


St Albans and many areas of the South and East need their green


belt, 3 million people might come into this country if we remain.


Which parts of the green belt will be needed to build on and where will


it go? We need to provide houses, homes and infrastructure for these


people. We made a clear commitment to protect the green belt and our


planning laws that we introduced and proposed to introduce do meet those


laws but I have to say to my honourable friend, we disagree on


this issue on European union membership and I see no particular


evidence from the Leave campaign that more people would come in.


Let's agree on this, we have a referendum and it is not going to be


up to her or me but the British people to desired. -- decide. No


wonder should underestimate public support for the BBC. 200,000 people


have signed a petition over the removal of the recipes website. The


government may have held back from some more extreme proposals but


there is still a need for concern. Will they allow MPs to provide


Parliamentary scrutiny that the charter renewal so Rob Lee deserves?


We want a great public broadcaster. We have agreed a deal with the BBC


that they have welcomed. On the specific issue she raises, that was


an operational decision by the BBC and not a decision taken by the


government. We have a great national public broadcaster in the BBC. We


don't want a newspaper in the form of the BBC. As newspapers move


online, the BBC want to be careful about what information they have on


their website so we can also have a flourishing private press. I think


the BBC have got that balance right. Will the Chancellor, firm and


explain as the House of Commons library and the ONS figures for 2015


clearly show that as we export 44% of goods and services within the


single market, why it is that in relation to the other 27 member


states we run a disastrous loss or deficit on these exports of 68


billion per annum, up 9 billion from last year alone whereas Germany with


the same 27 runs a profit or surplus of a massive 82 billion. Isn't that


a bad deal? We are a massive exporter of services and they


represent a 80% of the economy. We are home to one of the most


successful car industries in the world and we export to the


continent. We are part of the European Supply chain and that is


why leading businesses are in favour of is remaining in the European


Union. We disagree on this issue and that is why together we stood on the


manifesto to have a referendum and let the people decide. Thank you, Mr


Speaker. Headteachers, NHS, private-sector employers in my


constituency are telling me they have few if any qualified applicants


for a range of skilled roles and too many experienced staff are leaving.


The single most common reason for this crisis is the cost of rental


and purchase housing in west London which the government's housing


policies will not addressed. Even the subsidies to buy... Order!


Order! I'm sorry to say to the honourable lady, one sentence with a


question at the end of it and we must press on. Will the Chancellor


acknowledge this recruitment and retention crisis and do something


about it? We have 25,000 more clinically trained staff in our


national health service but we agree with her that there is a challenge


of housing in London. I met with Sadik Khan earlier this week and we


are going to see where we can agree with others is that can address that


issue. In my right honourable friend's enthusiast and to bludgeon


the voter into supporting the European Union that they don't


really like, how can he justify planning to break the law? Is he


aware that the public Administration select committee has now published


three legal opinions from Speaker's Council, from... THEY TALK OVER EACH


OTHER I hope the sentence is coming to an


end with a question at the end of it. Very briefly. They make it


perfectly clear that it is illegal for the government to keep their


pro-EU propaganda on the government website during the third period.


Turing the period, the government will comply with the law. Can I make


a general observation. We have fought for the referendum which is


taking place with huge issues at stake about Britain's economy,


Britain's security and place in the world. Let's debate the substance


rather than the process and then the British people will feel they have


had a range of opinions and they can make their own mind up. The care


sector faces a crisis made worse by the failure of the Chancellor to


properly fund increases in the minimum wage. Local government


Association has asked the Chancellor to bring forward ?700 million of


care funding from 2019 to this year and next year to help with those


extra costs. Will the Chancellor listen to local councils and form


his own minimum wage policy? Of course we always listen to local


authorities and we have given them the power which many have used to


apply a social care precept and that has come in in April in many areas.


At the same time, we have put more money into the better care fund and


we are confident that social care is funded. More needs to be done to


help the social care sector and the key is going to be integration with


the national health service in the coming years so it is much more


seamless as a service for our citizens. Last year at the


Conservative Party conference, the Prime Minister said that the future,


for we the state provided was shameful. The Dell or early grave on


the streets. Yesterday the Prison Reform Trust produced a report


identifying that far too high a proportion of children in care come


in touch with the criminal justice system. Will he ensure that policies


are implemented that prevents the unnecessary contact between the


criminal justice system and children in care so that they can have a good


future? I think he speaks very powerfully and, of course, we've got


to have a care system that does the very best for children. The Queens


speech has measures in that respect. The key thing is reforming our


prison system so that people are punished for crimes but have a


chance to rehabilitate themselves and that is one of the reforms I am


proudest to be part of. A Southampton letting agency has been


banned from trading for three years for not giving tenants their


deposits back and using them for other purposes. The situation as far


as letting agencies is concerned is that they are almost completely


regulated and it is potluck as to whether residents get a fey deal or


not. Is the Chancellor planning to do anything about this? We are


looking to make sure that people who rent are getting proper consumer


protection including from landlords who unreasonably withhold deposits.


It was the Chancellor and Angela Eagle for Labour. Labour decided to


go on this raid on the Google offices by the French tax


authorities who are trying to get over a billion pounds out of


auto-Google compared to the arrangement come to with Google in


the UK which net HMRC about ?130 million. There was a bit of Argy


bargey on that. The Chancellor wanted to anyhow what Miss Eagle had


done when she was a Treasury minister on Google. He couldn't


quite get an answer. Whether it was irrelevant. Banting back and


forward. Not that much substance. Some of the longest-winded questions


of modern time from the backbenchers there. This was the House of Commons


in search of a question mark. Very often it didn't find that particular


question mark. We'll go through in a second. We'll find out first of all


what the voters thought of it. Francs Edwards said enAngela Eagle


is the cleverist and wittiest. On-Maxwell said who on earth in the


Labour opposition put Miss Eagle forward. What an embarrassing


performance. Paula said George Osborne said there were different


points of view on Europe in the Conservative Party. That's why we're


having a referendum. Is that a good enough reason for this turmoil for


months on end. All we are getting these days are long pre-prepared


statements. Jim Pattinson said are there any questions in PMQs. Some me


andered. Went up a cul-de-sac and came back down. Found another


cul-de-sac. Fell over a precipice and still couldn't get the question


mark. Laura, let me ask you a question that has a very quick


question mark. Why was the Chancellor going on about Trident?


He couldn't resist the opportunity when he was at the dispatch box at


Prime Minister's Questions to pry to make an awkward point for the Labour


Party. One of the things not noticed about the Queen's Speech last week


which was roundly attacked for having nothing in it, also by


Michael Portillo, there was in it a commitment to press ahead with plans


for friedent. That, for the Labour Party, as we know, is a very tricky


issue. The leader of the party wants to try to get rid of it. He's having


a defence review he pretty much hopes will come up with that


recommendation. Many, many backbenchers and the big powerful


unions disagree with him. George Osborne in shock move to try to


embarrass Labour Party when in big profile moment at dispatch box.


Angela Eagle does well at these sort of events. She's good on her feet.


Not as good as she was last time though? She wasn't a bit more


long-winded. It is quite extraordinary, this is the first


Prime Minister's Question Time setting after a Queen's Speech. It


reflected there was nothing in the Queen's Speech. None of the


questions were really going at the substance. Both sides are


struggling. Normally angle will is a punchy. She has a good turn of


phrase. Why have you hired Alan surer to do what? He's going to be


an enterprise Tsar. Works with the business department. Always good to


get people from outside in to the business department. We brought


people in to make sure you have had people in business helping with the


department to make sure the civil servants and many of whom haven't


been in business, know what it's like. He'll have to step down from


presenting The Apprentice? Not sure of the details of his contract with


his broadcasters. In 2009 when Gordon Brown made an Enterprise Tsar


said in my view it is not possible for him to continue to present The


Apprentice when so closely identified with the Government. I


had thought he would stand down in his role of Apprentice. He's made no


secret for his admiration of Gordon Brown. Is this window dressing? I


his arrangement last time is to carry on on The Apprentice and also


advise the Government. So it's window dressing? If he was a proper


member of the Government he can't present a BBC programme? He will not


be a minister. He'll support the Government and business department.


To do what? To make sure we've an environment for enterprise. This is


a man who repeatedly meets business people, entrepreneurs, trying to get


businesses going. And making sure the business department sets the


environment for enterprise. A key part of delivering what we want. He


said not so long ago, George Osborne hasn't got a handle on economics.


You will you'll see the results. It is not me you have to convince, it's


Alan Sugar you've just hired. He's clearly come on board. That's good


news. Has he changed his mind? You'll have to ask him that. Is he


the only businessman you know? Is he the only businessman you know?


Definitely not. I wondered why you politicians have been so obsessed by


him. What was his greatest business achievement? He start add long time


ago. We all started a long time ago. You did, Andrew. What's his greatest


business achievement? He started in tech in the eighties. He started in


property. How did that go? He's involved in meeting all sorts of


business people. What's been his greatest business achievement. If


he's such a great entrepreneur and advise you on enterprise what has he


achieved? We've a whole series of business people in. You've only one


Tsar. Not true. For enterprise? We'd two a year, entrepreneurs in


residence. People who come in to business to make sure there's a


voice inside the business department. Sometimes on this


programme, you can have too much fun! I'm sure it has nothing to do


with the fact that Lord Sugar was happy to associate himself with the


Labour Party and recently said he's no longer happen why I to associate


himself with the Labour Party. I would say, these things often don't


end well. We've seen it plenty of times. Gordon Brown did it. Other


politicians did it. You bring in people with a high profile with the


public or in their own sector. They come into Government. Sometimes do


good work. They sometimes don't do much at all. Then they flounce out,


point fingers and is a, that lot don't no what they are doing at all.


I've better things to do. There are already big names from business


inside the Government. Jim O'Neill, former Goldman Sachs. The former


bottom of BT is Trade Minister. The idea the Government has to be seen


to bring in business expertise seems a little bit hard to fathom. It's


not that we have. We choose to. We've brought Mark Price in to do


the Trade Minister job are. But that's a job. This is too. It's not


paid, is it? It's important constantly to make sure the


Government ask supporting this country. This must be a devastating


blow to the Labour Party? The loss of Alan Sugar? Yes. I'm trying to


come to terms with it. Shall we dim the lights and move on?


, I just say, you're fired! I've been wanting to say that. Who are


you saying it to? She's an indiscriminate firer. Thanks, Laura.


A group of ex-military chiefs have today declared that Britain's


defence and security would be enhanced by leaving the EU.


Under the banner Veterans For Europe,


they warn that the UK is on an irreversible path towards an EU army


The dozen former senior military officers include


Major General Tim Cross who was commander of UK Forces


in Iraq, and he joins us now from College Green.


Welcome to the programme. How does our membership of the EU lessen, as


has been said, our commitment to NATO? It draws us into what is an


inevitable EU military union within the EU which has been declared in a


number of different treaties, including the Treaty of Lisbon. Of


course, we are fully integrated already in the EU military staff. In


the EU defence agency, even though the Prime Minister said in 2010 he


was going to leave the EU defence agency. And the EU battle group we


saw exercising in England last week. I'll ask you again. How does it


lessen our commitment to NATO? Why can't we be part of both, the EU and


NATO? It competes with NATO. France and Germany... In what way? It draws


money from NATO. No European Government is going to expend more


defence money that it is already spending. Quite the reverse, in


fact. They'll building an EU military unit. A lot of money going


into NATO will go into that EU military union. That will be


concerning to the Americans. Barack Obama was in Germany telling Angela


Merkel she had to pay another moo NATO. They are already worried by


the amount that goes into NATO. When the Americans realise what will


happen with EU military, they will begin to draw back from NATO as


well. That's the one alliance that's kept the UK and Europe safe since


the Second World War. Not the EU. But the UK Government is still very


committed to NATO as are other members. How would our defence


Cabibility and defence security improve if we left the EU? On the


security front, what currently happens, we have to allow any EU


citizen to come into the UK. To freely chaff here. We can check


their passports. We have to let them in unless we can prove conclusively


they present an immediate threat to the life and livelihood of the UK.


We are not part of the Schengen area in this sense. We are not part of


Schengen. We have to let them in unless they are a direct threat.


That's often based on secret enEU intelligence. If leave the EU we can


prevent them coming. People who have fought with Islamic State in Syria


and Iraq. Having all these large number of people coming in puts our


intelligence service under stress. Do you accept many of the threats


from terrorism have come from people who were British-born and who are


already here? I do accept that. That's very true. We don't want to


add to that problem by continuing to allow those people who threaten us


to come into the UK from Europe if we can stop them. We can't stop them


now. Let me just go back to you. On NATO, is our commitment to NATO as


Richard Kemp says, being affected by staying in the EU and moves towards


military union? No, there will not be an EU army. Those fears can be


put to one side. Not least evidence by the vast majority of the security


of recently retired security and military senior personnel who


support our remaining in the EU alongside staying in NATO as part of


our security. It is very important. We're going to have to leave there.


Richard Kemp, thank you. Now we talked earlier


about the Remain campaign's attempts Leave.EU, which you will remember


was the group that lost out in the race to become


the official leave campaign, said it wanted to reach out


to the youth vote with its Bpop Live event


in Birmingham. after a concert planned


for earlier this year had to be


cancelled when the headline act, Yesterday, soon after


the line-up was publicised, The boyband 5ive -


which actually now only consists of two of the band -


pulled out, deeming it more a political rally


than a pop concert. The idea of appearing


at the event alongside political figures including Nigel Farage


also didn't appeal in the end to singer Alesha Dixon,


who also pulled out. and the line-up still,


as best as we can establish, and the American group


Sister Sledge. Well, to discuss this


we're joined by the former He's had his own problems


with mixing music and politics after releasing and then withdrawing


his Ukip Calypso song in 2014. What do you make of all this? It is


interesting Obama didn't mention that the American people wanted us


to remain. He didn't mention Sister Sledge. Maybe they don't know. If I


had ebeen running, I'd have targeted people who were vote Leave leave.


Roger Daltrey is vote Leave leave. I would have targeted them to go it.


Who else other than Roger Daltrey? Ian Botham on a singing day! I


thought cricket was his thing. #2348 He sings with his bat. I wouldn't


argue with him. You'd get people who were pro-vote. It is a bit more


sensible. When you're doing Live Aid you're getting people sympathetic to


Live Aid. If you're singing we shall overcome the civil rights movement.


You get people interested in it. Probably not Bob Dylan for this


concert? Probably not for this. I don't know. If the money was right.


Mick Jagger would do it for money? He didn't ask me or you. Probably


because he's heard me sing. It's easier on the left to organise these


things most singers art easts would like the identify with the left.


They've done that before. It was done in 1987-1990. Paul Weller, the


Commune Ards. Billy Bragg. Probably a mistake for Ukip to do this? This


is cross-party. A vote Leave leave. No, it's not actually. It is a


Leave. EU. This is another a Ukip kind of one? Am I right in saying


that? From what I can gayer Gombault it is not vote Leave leave. It will


be in Birmingham. Are you going to go? It is up the road. It is the


Jude Ian people's front not the people's Jude Ian front. Who's left?


Sister Sledge. Mike, bash that red button. The


Mike, thanks for being on. Sorry it was so rushed.


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


Jo and I will be here at noon tomorrow


with all the big political stories of the day.


We'll be joined by Iain Duncan Smith.


Do join us if you can. Bye-bye.


Download Subtitles