:00:16. > :00:21.worked, as the Chancellor promised it would, so there is to be more of
:00:21. > :00:25.it. �11.5 billion more will be cut from public spending, masses of
:00:25. > :00:29.jobs will vanish, benefits will be cut and this apparently a sign that
:00:29. > :00:33.the economy is recovering. What did you make of it Allegra? I tell you
:00:33. > :00:36.what I made of it, I think the Chancellor just dictated the terms
:00:36. > :00:40.of the next general election. will see what the Education
:00:40. > :00:45.Secretary has to say in a moment or two.
:00:45. > :00:49.And the editors of a couple of our national newspapers are having a
:00:49. > :00:53.quiet drink as they discuss how tomorrow's newspapers interpret
:00:53. > :00:56.what George Osborne had to say. Funnily enough, although we can't
:00:56. > :01:02.afford all sorts of areas of public spending, the Chancellor believes
:01:02. > :01:07.we can afford to spend another �9.5 billion building a faster train
:01:07. > :01:13.line from London to Birmingham and points north that won't be working
:01:13. > :01:18.for years. Also tonight: Strewth, the Australian Prime
:01:19. > :01:28.Minister gets dumped by her party for the bloke that she unseated
:01:29. > :01:30.
:01:30. > :01:33.years ago. What has gender got to do with it? They thought this
:01:33. > :01:37.wouldn't be necessary and it wouldn't have been had the
:01:37. > :01:40.Government's economic plans worked out as they would have hoped. Sod
:01:40. > :01:46.the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to tell the nation how he
:01:46. > :01:50.planned to save a further massive amount of money, �1.5 billion in
:01:50. > :01:59.total. We will speak to the Education Secretary about it
:01:59. > :02:04.shortly we begin our coverage tonight with our political editor.
:02:04. > :02:08.You thought this morning you woke up in 2013, but get with the
:02:08. > :02:13.programme. Or at least get with Newsnight. Lift your eyes up and
:02:13. > :02:18.over to the horizon of the first year of the next parliament. Day
:02:18. > :02:25.break in April 2015 will see the skyline of these Government
:02:25. > :02:29.departments shrunken. And the state smaller. This is why. We have
:02:29. > :02:33.always believed that the deficit mattered, that we needed to take
:02:33. > :02:38.tough decisions to deal with our debts, and the opposition to that
:02:38. > :02:43.has collapsed into incoherence too. Today I announce the next stage of
:02:43. > :02:47.our economic plan to turn Britain around.
:02:47. > :02:55.But hold on, didn't we have a clear plan for getting rid of the deficit,
:02:55. > :02:59.already? In 2010 the Government thought they could eliminate the
:02:59. > :03:04.structural deficit by 2014/15, like this. But economic growth did not
:03:04. > :03:09.transpire, and so they need even more cuts to get back on track.
:03:09. > :03:14.This is the revised timetable to eliminate the structural definite
:03:15. > :03:19.by 2018. To hit this target the Government needs to find �11.5
:03:19. > :03:24.billion of additional cuts in the year 2015, which is why we are here
:03:24. > :03:29.today. We have applied through principles
:03:29. > :03:35.to the spending round I set out today, reform to get more from
:03:35. > :03:38.every pound we spend. Growth to give Britain the education
:03:38. > :03:46.enterprise and economic infrastructure it needs to win the
:03:46. > :03:51.global race. And fairness, making sure we are all in it together.
:03:51. > :03:55.free schools, a social care package and bold claims on infrastructure,
:03:55. > :03:58.these allow him to claim the progressive mantle. There are
:03:58. > :04:01.plenty of sizeable cuts. Local Government, transfor the,
:04:01. > :04:07.environment, Work and Pensions, and even an example-setting Treasury,
:04:08. > :04:11.all hit by around 10%. The clear winners are those departments with
:04:11. > :04:14.ring-fenced budgets. Health, international development and
:04:14. > :04:19.education getting away virtually scot free.
:04:19. > :04:24.In the run up to this process, many cabinet ministers kicked up, they
:04:24. > :04:28.really did not want deep cuts to their department, and they were so
:04:28. > :04:32.virulant about it they even got nicknamed the national union of
:04:32. > :04:37.ministers. Now, in the round, when we look at what cuts departments
:04:37. > :04:41.have taken, actually it does seem that those who shouted loudest
:04:41. > :04:45.might have had the blade blunted. At the Ministry of Defence it
:04:46. > :04:51.wasn't as bad as it could have been. The overall budget does continue to
:04:51. > :04:57.fall, but there is no further cuts to Armed Forces personnel. And the
:04:57. > :05:01.security and intelligence agencies even got a 3.4% increase. At Vince
:05:01. > :05:04.cable's department, their cut was 5.9%, but again George Osborne
:05:04. > :05:09.bought the pitch that the business department is a growth department,
:05:09. > :05:14.so science and apprenticeships were relatively protected. Over at the
:05:14. > :05:18.Home Office cuts were also deep at 6%. But again they could have been
:05:18. > :05:25.deeper. The policing budget, already down 20% now faces the
:05:25. > :05:29.prospect of another cut, but it will be less than the 6% figure.
:05:29. > :05:34.Elsewhere Ministry of Justice, Foreign Office, DEFRA, they all saw
:05:34. > :05:38.truly deep cuts, perhaps their minsters hadn't been so vocal.
:05:39. > :05:42.increasing level of realisim about the state of the UK public finances
:05:42. > :05:46.is continuing to grow. George Osborne just toughened his position
:05:46. > :05:50.again. The next Government will toughen again in 2015. You know
:05:50. > :05:55.finally we are seeing the kind of decisions that we have been waiting
:05:55. > :05:59.for about five years now. But the big surprise of the day was that
:05:59. > :06:04.the welfare department, which had been deemed too politically
:06:04. > :06:08.sensitive for any more cutting, it did get further cuts, so now there
:06:08. > :06:12.will be a new seven-day waiting period for those who need
:06:12. > :06:16.unemployment benefit, and those who don't have functional English have
:06:16. > :06:20.now been told they must learn English or lose their benefits.
:06:20. > :06:28.Neither of these are massive revenue raisers for the Government,
:06:28. > :06:33.but her symbolically potent. From next year's budget the Office for
:06:33. > :06:37.Budget Responsibility will monitor Britain's new welfare cap. All we
:06:38. > :06:41.know is it will apply to welfare spending over �100 billion. While
:06:41. > :06:48.it leaves out the state pension, it targets housing benefit, disability
:06:48. > :06:53.benefit and tax credits. Their cost is currently stuck at around �112
:06:53. > :06:57.billion. This makes possibly as much as �12 billion of welfare
:06:57. > :07:02.spending vulnerable. And with that graph we now know much more about
:07:02. > :07:07.the entirety of the next parliament. That bit of welfare spending that
:07:07. > :07:10.is above �100 billion is now fair game for cutting. It could be that
:07:10. > :07:15.politicians go into the next election pledging that they will
:07:15. > :07:20.get rid of some �10 billion of welfare spending. Put that into
:07:20. > :07:25.context, in the last parliament we have seen �18 billion. Nearly the
:07:25. > :07:28.same magnitude is on the horizon. To showcase its new fiscal
:07:28. > :07:34.discipline, Labour agreed with the Chancellor's headline spending cuts.
:07:34. > :07:39.But it still went on the attack. This out-of-touch Chancellor has
:07:39. > :07:46.failed on living standards, growth and the deficit and families and
:07:46. > :07:52.businesses are paying the price for his failure. Over that horizon, not
:07:52. > :07:54.actually that far away, at the next election Labour intends to pledge
:07:54. > :07:58.fiscal discipline alongside massive infrastructure investment. The
:07:58. > :08:04.Government knows this and tomorrow will announce something similar. A
:08:04. > :08:13.general election may be many moons away, but positioning for it is
:08:13. > :08:20.dominating every waking hour in Whitehall. Allegra and Paul Mason
:08:20. > :08:24.are both with us now. What was the stand-out political issue for you?
:08:24. > :08:28.The stand-out political, the broad picture-wise, the reason I say I
:08:28. > :08:32.think he dominated, or dictated the terms of the next general election
:08:32. > :08:36.is that this is a man who actually stood up today and announced what
:08:36. > :08:40.he announced, in terms of extra cuts today, because his own plan
:08:40. > :08:43.hadn't worked. Even though his own plan hadn't worked he has still
:08:43. > :08:48.managed to get the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat party to agree
:08:48. > :08:52.to the figures that we just went through in that package. The stand-
:08:52. > :08:59.out broad political theme at the moment of today is that this could
:08:59. > :09:02.have been a moment of ignominy for him. But his stature in his own
:09:03. > :09:06.party had increased and he had to actually put the number on the 2015
:09:06. > :09:11.general election. What do we learn about going forward in the
:09:11. > :09:15.governance management of the economy? When Labour left office,
:09:15. > :09:19.Liam Byrne, the Treasury Secretary, famously left a note saying "I have
:09:19. > :09:21.to say there is no money left". This was the kind of note to the
:09:21. > :09:26.next Government whoever it is, saying there are no cuts left.
:09:26. > :09:30.There are no cuts left to do of the kind we have been doing for three,
:09:30. > :09:36.four, five years by the end of the parliament. That is ring-fenced
:09:36. > :09:40.health, education, pairing away at departments. If you look at the
:09:40. > :09:43.�11.5 billion, �5 billion is efficiency savings. The Government
:09:43. > :09:46.has provided a handy list of things that might happen and some case
:09:46. > :09:50.studies of stuff that is happening. It has not given a list of where
:09:51. > :09:56.that �5 billion is coming from. We know �2 billion from local
:09:56. > :09:58.Government. Even the big headline about stopping public sector
:09:58. > :10:03.workers getting automatic increments, the Education Secretary
:10:03. > :10:07.you are about to speak to has abolished in his department. But
:10:07. > :10:10.the health service have something like a million workers and can't do
:10:10. > :10:14.that. They are going to link it more closely to performance and
:10:14. > :10:18.seek further reforms. That is where that �5 billion, some of that �5
:10:18. > :10:23.billion is coming from. They are really at the bottom of the barrel
:10:23. > :10:27.of this kind of cut. But there is another kind of cut, which is the
:10:27. > :10:30.big specific political moment, not the thematic one, which is this new
:10:30. > :10:38.welfare cut that we have been talking about on this programme for
:10:38. > :10:42.some six months now. The cuts to AMY, we try to not mention this
:10:42. > :10:46.phrase but there isn't any better shorthand. Welfare has been allowed
:10:46. > :10:50.to go up with demand and it means it goes up unchecked. Today they
:10:50. > :10:54.set out, for the first time, not the exact cap, but it will be
:10:54. > :11:00.targeted at all spending above �100 billion. In the graph we showed in
:11:00. > :11:07.the piece, it shows that right now it has been stuck for a few years
:11:07. > :11:10.at �112. Do the math, it is not that difficult. It is �12 billion.
:11:10. > :11:14.This is the significance of this. I'm not saying the Conservatives
:11:14. > :11:19.will go into the next election, and the Liberal Democrats will not be
:11:19. > :11:22.wholly comfort with it. Going in saying they will put �12 billion,
:11:22. > :11:25.but that is the extreme of what they will cut. Going forward Paul?
:11:25. > :11:29.This was the moment in the parliament where you saw almost the
:11:29. > :11:32.future shape of, and I say this for a reason, of a Conservative Britain.
:11:32. > :11:36.It might be a coalition budget, but the Chancellor is a Conservative,
:11:36. > :11:41.it was a Conservative speech. I think the speech marred. It wasn't
:11:41. > :11:44.the subtext but the absolute core of it was we have done austerity
:11:44. > :11:48.without tanking the economy. We have got the opposition to sign up
:11:48. > :11:52.to most of the austerity we know about going forward. Britain's
:11:52. > :11:56.businesses and the work force, the work force has accepted pay cuts
:11:56. > :12:03.and business has been innovative and created jobs. That part of the
:12:03. > :12:08.matterive, up until now, has happened. -- narrative, up until
:12:08. > :12:12.now has happened. The politicians were on a roll from the front bench,
:12:13. > :12:16.but you felt that George Osborne was on a narrative that he felt
:12:16. > :12:20.comfortable with it. The Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury,
:12:20. > :12:23.Chris Leslie is with us, also with us, the Education Secretary,
:12:23. > :12:28.Michael Gove. This is what you call efficient management of the economy
:12:28. > :12:32.is it? I think it is a series of decisions that ensure the taxpayer
:12:32. > :12:34.gets a better deal. That the services people properly expect the
:12:34. > :12:39.Government to provide will be protected. And across Government we
:12:39. > :12:43.are making sure that we deliver the services more efficiently and
:12:43. > :12:48.effectively. But it is only two years since we were told by your
:12:48. > :12:55.esteemed leaders that these further cuts would not be necessary? Yes.
:12:55. > :12:57.Since then we have had catastrophic economic conditions in the eurozone,
:12:57. > :13:00.our major trading bodies. The facts change and we have to change in
:13:00. > :13:05.order to deal with that. One of the things we have had to acknowledge
:13:05. > :13:06.is the rate of growth that the independent Office of Budget
:13:06. > :13:09.Responsibility predicted would happen hasn't happened. The
:13:09. > :13:14.responsible thing to do in those circumstances is to make sure that
:13:14. > :13:17.you still carry on with the deficit reduction strategy but take it
:13:17. > :13:21.slightly more slowly than you otherwise would have done, that is
:13:21. > :13:25.a view which most independent observers believe is the prudent
:13:25. > :13:32.way to approach. It is certain low a point of view that the Labour
:13:32. > :13:38.Party has finally come to accept despite its suspicions and obdurcy.
:13:38. > :13:41.It means any predictions made today are equally worthless? There were
:13:41. > :13:45.worthless predictions by the Labour Party. Your management of the
:13:45. > :13:52.economy? Let's talk about that. One of the things we have had a million
:13:52. > :13:55.private sector jobs created. We were told if you cut at George
:13:55. > :13:58.Osborne's levels those jobs wouldn't be created. That is an
:13:58. > :14:02.economic achievement. We were also told at the same time if we would
:14:02. > :14:08.cut spending in the Home Office that crime would increase with
:14:08. > :14:12.devastating economic impact, it hasn't. Crime has fallen. In 2011
:14:12. > :14:20.you did not see what has made today's further cuts necessary. It
:14:20. > :14:23.follows from that, does it not, that you are equally unable to be a
:14:23. > :14:27.clairvoyant now as you were then? certainly wouldn't claim I was the
:14:27. > :14:31.gift of second-sight. What I do have is the capacity to be able to
:14:31. > :14:35.recognise that when you do have turbulence of the kind that we
:14:35. > :14:42.faced in the eurozone, when you do have the impact that global
:14:42. > :14:44.economic factors have had...Can You...The Features were made by the
:14:44. > :14:47.Office of Budget Responsibility, which is an independent body we
:14:47. > :14:52.created. They are not George Osborne's figures, they are the
:14:52. > :14:56.figures of a group of people who operate with a degree of authority
:14:56. > :14:59.that they would never have had. cuts were not George Osborne's,
:14:59. > :15:04.they were not the office of budget response the. They produced that
:15:05. > :15:08.Jeremy. Can you tell us then whether these �350 million worth of
:15:08. > :15:13.cuts to welfare are the last word on welfare cuts? No, by definition
:15:13. > :15:18.they are not. Of course you can't. The key point about the cap is we
:15:18. > :15:20.will ensure that if, in the future, any Government feels that it is
:15:20. > :15:23.appropriate to increase welfare spending they will have to come to
:15:23. > :15:26.the House of Commons and explain why, or they are going to have to
:15:26. > :15:31.think hard about how housing benefit and other benefits are
:15:31. > :15:34.allocated. So it may well be the case in the future if we are
:15:34. > :15:38.fortunate enough to have a Conservative, or Conservative-led
:15:38. > :15:41.Government re-elected, that we will have more efficiency in welfare.
:15:41. > :15:47.Labour can't make that promise. There could be further cuts. The
:15:47. > :15:51.question of the �100 billion cap? Everyone recognises immediately
:15:51. > :15:55.after 2015/16, whichever party is in power, there will have to be
:15:55. > :15:59.spending disciplines. Nobody is saying that immediately after 2016
:15:59. > :16:04.Nirvana will return. Everyone is in favour of discipline, but you say
:16:04. > :16:09.there will be a cap. This word has been bandied about all day.
:16:09. > :16:13.bandied about, used with precision. With precision! How exactly will
:16:13. > :16:16.this cap work? Pensions and jobseeker's allowance will not be
:16:16. > :16:20.covered by it. But other parts of the welfare budget will be managed
:16:20. > :16:25.in the same way as other departmental budgets are managed.
:16:25. > :16:29.You asked me to explain, I will try my best. It means in areas like
:16:29. > :16:33.disability benefit or housing benefit that there will be an
:16:33. > :16:38.absolute total which the Government can't spend. What is the cap?
:16:38. > :16:40.Around �100 million. Supposing you exceed it? The Chancellor said if
:16:41. > :16:43.for any reason a Government feels they have to exceed it, they have
:16:43. > :16:46.to come to the House of Commons and to explain why, but the
:16:46. > :16:50.responsibility will be on them to do what the last Government didn't
:16:50. > :16:53.do. Will they sit on the naughty step or something. There is no
:16:53. > :16:59.sanction here at all? There is a self-imposed discipline, it will be
:16:59. > :17:02.a significant thing to do, having a cap not to stick to it, it will be
:17:02. > :17:06.a significant penalty that any minister will face. What is this
:17:06. > :17:10.penalty, he has to make a statement to the House of Commons? He has to
:17:10. > :17:12.explain why it is he's doing things differently. That is a penalty is
:17:12. > :17:17.it? Sometimes, considering some of the people you find in the House of
:17:17. > :17:23.Commons. The particular thing about the welfare cap is that it is
:17:23. > :17:25.placing the department much work and mention -- of Work and Pensions
:17:25. > :17:29.under the same discipline I face in the Department of Education and
:17:29. > :17:34.elsewhere. We have budgets we have to meet. We have to manage the
:17:34. > :17:37.expenditure we can't simply allow it to let rip. One of the problems
:17:37. > :17:41.with the mismanagement of the welfare budget under previous
:17:41. > :17:46.Governments is it was allowed to let rip without this degree of
:17:46. > :17:48.discipline being imposed. It is entirely ingrained with other
:17:48. > :17:52.changes that George Osborne has announced today that will
:17:52. > :17:58.incentivise people not to work. We will not have a situation whereby
:17:58. > :18:02.people can turn up at a Jobcentre and then demand their benefits
:18:02. > :18:06.first, without producing hard evidence that they are putting job
:18:06. > :18:09.seeking first, producing that CV, making sure they learn English if
:18:09. > :18:15.they don't have it, and making sure for example if they take time off
:18:15. > :18:19.to raise a child, they are serious to get back to work. We will step
:18:19. > :18:23.aside of the question of why it has taken so long to get to that?
:18:23. > :18:27.don't think you can say the Government has been idle.
:18:27. > :18:31.appear to have only just in theed this discrepancy. But let's deal
:18:31. > :18:36.with the �12 billion, there is a difference between �100 billion,
:18:36. > :18:42.which is supposedly the cap, and the �100 billion which you are
:18:42. > :18:48.running. What will you cut? Eligibility to housing benefit
:18:48. > :18:52.needs to be tackled. One of the things we have been led to do
:18:52. > :18:57.remove the spare room subsidy, we will look again at how certain
:18:57. > :19:02.disability and incapacity been fits are allocated, Labour have opposed
:19:02. > :19:06.that. At every turn when we have been prepared to reform the welfare
:19:06. > :19:11.state to incentivise work, Labour have objected and played to the
:19:11. > :19:15.gallery. Now they have come like repentant sinners and said they
:19:15. > :19:20.will exercise discipline. shadow secretary is here and will
:19:20. > :19:25.speak for himself in a moment or two. We will come to you in a
:19:25. > :19:31.moment, if you forgive us. You tell us what you will do? I already have.
:19:31. > :19:36.You have given us a long disposition on what you said Labour
:19:36. > :19:39.won't do? These are alternative, I have explained exactly what we have
:19:39. > :19:44.been doing, changes to child benefit and disability benefit. And
:19:44. > :19:47.one of the things about the way in which Iain Duncan Smith and Nick
:19:47. > :19:50.Clegg have worked together. We have ensured that those genuinely in
:19:50. > :19:53.need continue to receive the support they deserve, but those
:19:53. > :19:57.people, and there are some using the welfare system as an
:19:57. > :20:03.alternative to work, the game is up. Do you think any other departments
:20:03. > :20:06.can be cut any further? Yes.Which ones? That's a matter for the
:20:06. > :20:12.Chancellor. I wouldn't want to usurp his position. You can always
:20:12. > :20:21.look for further cuts. What about your departments? We are looking.
:20:21. > :20:24.Can it be cut further? We could be more efficient. Let me give you
:20:24. > :20:28.specific examples. We have protected the budget. Wasn't it a
:20:28. > :20:32.condition of you being elected? were elected for a whole host of
:20:32. > :20:35.reasons. We have managed to keep that promise in a way that perhaps
:20:35. > :20:39.previous Governments promises have been dishonoured. Within that
:20:39. > :20:43.budget it is undoubtedly the case that the moneykg spent more
:20:43. > :20:45.efficiently and effectively. There are inefficiencies in the way some
:20:45. > :20:49.schools and other educational institutions spend their money. It
:20:49. > :20:54.is also the case within my own department there are inefficiencies
:20:54. > :20:57.that we have driven up and problems we have inherited we have put right.
:20:57. > :21:02.Any inefficiencies still to be put out of your department? Thanks to
:21:02. > :21:11.the brilliant work of my permanent secretary, we are proceeding at
:21:11. > :21:15.pace to do that. In Chris Wormwood I have a big cut well delivered
:21:15. > :21:21.from him. You are accepting all these figures
:21:21. > :21:24.are you, effectively we have seen the state of the 2015 budget now
:21:24. > :21:28.haven't we? On the proviso that there is nothing to be done in the
:21:28. > :21:37.two years before then to stimulate growth and maybe stave off some of
:21:37. > :21:40.the need for the cuts. Obviously you know in an ideal world we would
:21:40. > :21:44.have had a Government that used today to stimulate the economy,
:21:44. > :21:48.which would mitigate the need for some of these cuts. If it looks as
:21:48. > :21:50.though they are carrying on regardless, as it sounded from the
:21:50. > :21:55.education secretary, they don't think anything can be done about
:21:55. > :21:58.the economy. It looks like the next Government will inherit a bleak
:21:58. > :22:02.inheritance. In the possibility, by I suppose we must accept, that you
:22:02. > :22:06.form the next Government, you will be operating a budget according to
:22:06. > :22:09.these guidelines will you? For day- to-day spending, yes. Of course
:22:09. > :22:12.that will have to be the starting point. We would have totally
:22:12. > :22:17.different priorities from this Government, particularly when it
:22:17. > :22:22.comes to things, for example on welfare they are intending to
:22:22. > :22:25.cut...What Would you cut instead? They are intending to give a winter
:22:25. > :22:29.allowance to the wealthiest 5% of pensioners, for example. Or taking
:22:29. > :22:35.it away from people who live in the Tropics? That is of course an easy
:22:35. > :22:40.one to do. I don't know why the Government are waiting until 2015
:22:40. > :22:43.to say those with retirement incomes of �42,000 and above
:22:43. > :22:47.shouldn't get the winter allowance. There is a free schools programme
:22:47. > :22:52.where the education secretary is looking to start new free schools
:22:52. > :22:56.in areas where they already have ample unfilled spare place. That's
:22:56. > :22:59.completely wasteful. There are priorities. There could be some
:22:59. > :23:04.efficencies to come in his department, what other departments
:23:04. > :23:08.do you think could be cut? I think what we have got to do is first of
:23:08. > :23:13.all focus on getting the economy growing. And this is a very big
:23:13. > :23:18.divide. Yes, yes, yes.Not yes, yes, yes. This is a big divide between
:23:18. > :23:21.the political party. Let as assume the decision now are carried
:23:21. > :23:24.through? Why wave the white flag and assume nothing can be done
:23:24. > :23:29.about something in two years time. You heard the Education Secretary
:23:29. > :23:31.saying it was all the fault of the eurozone, and the Office for Budget
:23:32. > :23:35.Responsibility. They could do something about growth and they
:23:35. > :23:39.won't. We know what's going to happen. Let's assume for the sake
:23:39. > :23:42.of argument, since we can't see the future. Let's assume their
:23:43. > :23:46.predictions are right. And let's assume for the sake of argument
:23:46. > :23:48.that you win the next election. Are there Government department that is
:23:48. > :23:52.could be further cut? Of course there are savings that could be
:23:52. > :23:57.made. What are they?For a start we think it is a question whether
:23:57. > :24:02.there should be more money spent on Police Commissioners, for example,
:24:02. > :24:05.than on the existing plort. much will that save -- Police
:24:05. > :24:10.Authority. How much will that save you? We don't want a millionaire's
:24:10. > :24:14.tax cut, that is the wrong priority. We wouldn't have been reorganising
:24:14. > :24:19.the NHS, spending �3 billion on a top-down change that nobody voted
:24:19. > :24:23.for or wanted. There are priorities and changes that can be made.
:24:23. > :24:28.there cuts to be made into departments? We don't want to get
:24:28. > :24:31.into that situation. Nobody wants that situation. They don't need to
:24:31. > :24:35.be in this situation. Do you want to cut public spending, of course
:24:35. > :24:39.doesn't want to cut public spending? The surprising thing is
:24:39. > :24:43.you are absolutely right, Chris talks about historic things, and he
:24:43. > :24:48.has every right to disagree with them. Chris cannot mention a single
:24:48. > :24:53.programme that we are investing in that he would cut. What about the
:24:53. > :24:58.winter allowance. Why wouldn't you do that. It is a tiny sum.Why
:24:58. > :25:01.wouldn't you do it? What else would you cut. What is wrong with making
:25:01. > :25:05.that change for the wealthiest pensioners on winter allowance,
:25:05. > :25:09.why? That is your single transferable spending cut. You have
:25:09. > :25:12.used it to pay for almost everything. What about the
:25:12. > :25:15.millionaire's tax cut, why is that priority, why is it a priority. You
:25:15. > :25:19.are laughing about it. This is incredibly serious, we have cuts
:25:19. > :25:22.that will be hitting people exceptionally hard, this is not a
:25:22. > :25:27.laughing matter. You have the opportunity to stave these off if
:25:27. > :25:32.you focus on growth. I wasn't laughing it was Jeremy. What was in
:25:32. > :25:37.the plan today to stimulate growth? Nothing, this was a neglectful
:25:37. > :25:39.decision by the Chancellor. He's kpwhrotly neglected his
:25:40. > :25:45.responsibility -- neglect -- completely neglected his
:25:45. > :25:48.responsibility to this economy. I think it was said they should got
:25:48. > :25:52.things moving on construction and stimulated capital, that has been
:25:52. > :26:00.cut in education. It is being cut. We will stop this end of the pier
:26:00. > :26:04.show now. Thank you very much. You may not have noticed the
:26:04. > :26:10.announcement today that the cost of high-speed 2's potential charge
:26:10. > :26:14.rose overall by a mere �10 billion. The creation of a high-speed rail
:26:14. > :26:19.line from London to the north of England will, say the Government,
:26:19. > :26:23.produce quantifiable economic benefits to the region. Today the
:26:23. > :26:29.transfor the minister told MPs that the new projected cost to the rail
:26:29. > :26:36.line, linking London to the Midlands had risen to �42.6 billion
:26:36. > :26:39.from the original estimate of �33 billion, and included a contingency
:26:40. > :26:49.fund. I know in the context of the bill the House will want to be
:26:49. > :26:56.updated on the cost of HS2, I will be writing tomorrow to the chairman.
:26:56. > :27:01.HS2 limited, to start a budget. That is �70 billion, this takes
:27:01. > :27:05.account of the environmental and design changes for the scheme. It
:27:05. > :27:10.includes a tunnel to Northolt. Design changes at Euston station
:27:10. > :27:15.and a tunnel under the M6 near Birmingham. As a responsible
:27:15. > :27:20.Government we must be prudent and that means allowing the right level
:27:20. > :27:30.of contingency. In addition we have set an overall indicative amount
:27:30. > :27:31.
:27:31. > :27:37.for the budget for phase 1 that is �2.4. For phase II it is �21.2
:27:37. > :27:43.billion. A total of �42.6 billion at 2011 prices. That includes, can
:27:43. > :27:53.I just finish this one point. That includes a �12.7 billion of
:27:53. > :27:57.contingency. Can you explain as a fellow
:27:57. > :28:02.Conservative MP why your party is so keen on this project? It is a
:28:02. > :28:07.party we have inherited from the Labour Party, Lord Adonis, it is a
:28:07. > :28:13.Trojan horse of a project like the 50p tax. I can't explain why they
:28:13. > :28:19.are in favour of it. It is roaring through my constituency causing
:28:19. > :28:24.blight, fear and anxiety. Planning paralysis also. And it will go
:28:24. > :28:29.increasingly overbudget. So you have no idea why all these people,
:28:29. > :28:34.on whose side of the House you sit, all kindred spirits are so
:28:34. > :28:39.enthusiastic about it? There is a lot of political capital put behind
:28:39. > :28:42.this project. The increase in the budget will take this project past
:28:42. > :28:47.the next general election without requiring any further funding.
:28:47. > :28:53.figures are extraordinary. This was an increase today of about �10
:28:53. > :28:57.billion in the contingency fund? top of that �42.6 billion, you have
:28:57. > :29:03.�7.5 billion for the rolling stock which will be increasing at current
:29:03. > :29:07.prices. The whole project as rien to somewhere in excess of �-- risen
:29:07. > :29:12.to somewhere in excess of �50 billion. It will hit �100 billion.
:29:12. > :29:14.The Government says it won't go any higher? The history of large
:29:14. > :29:20.infrastructure in rail in particular, if you look on the
:29:20. > :29:26.continent and internationally they rise by about 45%. I think there is
:29:26. > :29:31.a specific danger with this project because it is a 20-year lead time.
:29:31. > :29:38.Maybe it will be worth it for the jobs create, an estimated 20,000 or
:29:38. > :29:43.so? In constituencies like mine, 30% of the businesses who would be
:29:43. > :29:47.affected have more or less said they wouldn't be relocating but
:29:48. > :29:53.taking the package for that as retirement funds and those jobs
:29:53. > :29:58.will be lost. It will cost lots of jobs. How far does the opposition
:29:58. > :30:01.of HS2 extend in your party? People are affected by the route and they
:30:01. > :30:04.will represent their constituents, as I do in North West
:30:04. > :30:14.Leicestershire, then there are people who will be increasingly
:30:14. > :30:21.concerned about the cost. That will continue to escalate. We have taken
:30:21. > :30:25.a close interest in the story and will so for the next 20 years. The
:30:25. > :30:28.first Australian female Prime Minister is no more. She has been
:30:28. > :30:31.consigned to history. In another shocking development it has turned
:30:31. > :30:34.out that the promise by Miss Gillard's predecessor that there
:30:34. > :30:39.were no circumstances under which he would return to the leadership
:30:39. > :30:44.of the Labour Party has turned out to be what is technically known as
:30:44. > :30:50.a load of horse poo. Although Miss Gillard has repeatedly complained
:30:50. > :30:58.that many Australian men are less evolved on gender issues than the
:30:58. > :31:02.average wallaby, the party line is it is nothing to do with sexism.
:31:02. > :31:08.As we know Australia is a moisturising Metro sexual country,
:31:08. > :31:18.where men no longer hide their feelings behind boarishness and
:31:18. > :31:24.
:31:24. > :31:27.alcohol. Hang on here is Bob Hawk at the cricket this year. As the
:31:27. > :31:31.first woman Prime Minister down under, Julia Gillard was on the
:31:31. > :31:37.receiving end of what looked like some pretty ripe sexist attitudes.
:31:37. > :31:44.Her long time partner, Tim, is a hairdresser. And she found herself
:31:44. > :31:48.quizzed about his sexuality on live radio. Tim's gay? Well. That is
:31:48. > :31:53.what they are saying, it is a myth. That is absurd. You hear it, he
:31:53. > :31:57.must be gay, he's a hairdresser. You have heard it, it is not me
:31:57. > :32:07.saying it. Despite the old world curtesy with which the DJ showed
:32:07. > :32:12.her out, he was later fired. Miss Gillard also complained that crude
:32:12. > :32:17.slogans about her appeared to be condoneed by her opponents in
:32:17. > :32:21.parliament. I will not be lectured by sexism and misogyny by this man.
:32:21. > :32:31.The Government will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this
:32:31. > :32:32.
:32:32. > :32:36.man, not now, not ever. But as so often in politics, your
:32:36. > :32:40.real enemies are on your own side. Gillard ousted the then Labour
:32:40. > :32:47.Party leader, Kevin Rudd, three years ago. Now he has his own back
:32:47. > :32:52.and ousted her. In 2007 the Australian people elected me their
:32:53. > :32:57.Prime Minister. That is a task I resume today with humility, with
:32:57. > :33:02.honour, and with an important sense of energy and purpose. I have been
:33:02. > :33:06.a little bit bemused by colleagues in the newspapers who have admitted
:33:06. > :33:11.that I have suffered more pressure as a result of my gender than other
:33:11. > :33:14.prime ministers in the past, but then concluded that it had zero
:33:14. > :33:19.affect on my political position or the political position of the
:33:19. > :33:29.Labour Party. It doesn't explain everything, it doesn't explain
:33:29. > :33:32.
:33:32. > :33:36.nothing, it explains some things. Gillard, one of Australia's finest
:33:37. > :33:41.sons is angry over what some male critics have said about her.
:33:41. > :33:44.they said something about my mother, sister or wife, I would want a
:33:44. > :33:47.seriously deep conversation with him. I think it is a lack of
:33:47. > :33:55.gallantry that has crept into not just politics but the way politics
:33:55. > :34:03.is reported. And I think it gives license to a type of hater that
:34:03. > :34:08.will only further reduce the quality of our lives. But in this
:34:08. > :34:12.Ozzy-run coffee shop back here in the old country, -- Aussie-run
:34:12. > :34:18.coffee shop back here in the old country, others believe sexism
:34:18. > :34:21.isn't the overriding factor in this story. Politics, this is very much
:34:21. > :34:26.the Kevin and Julia soap opera for a good five years now. Today was
:34:26. > :34:32.the climax of that. You have to remember and I have been an adviser
:34:32. > :34:37.to many Australian Governments. That governance in Australia is a
:34:37. > :34:40.fairly vibrant and robust and sometimes brutal event. There are
:34:40. > :34:50.democratic politics around the world in Australia. There can be
:34:50. > :34:57.very much blood on the shag pile. What's that Skippy? It is a doomed
:34:57. > :35:03.11th hour photo -op for Australian Women's Weekly, making Julia
:35:03. > :35:08.Gillard appear more housewifely. Her country may have to review its
:35:08. > :35:11.attitudes about gender. Her legacy will be did she get too much of a
:35:11. > :35:16.hard time, has Australia more of a way to go to be where we want to be
:35:16. > :35:19.on that issue. What I am absolutely confident of is it will be easier
:35:19. > :35:28.for the next woman and the woman after that and the woman after that.
:35:28. > :35:33.And I'm proud of that. Jason Grove is the President of the Overseas
:35:33. > :35:37.branch of the opposition liberal party, whose leader, Tony Abott,
:35:37. > :35:42.famously branded a misogynist. And Paola Totaro is an Australian
:35:42. > :35:44.writer and journalist, and who has written about her country's
:35:45. > :35:50.politics throughout Miss Building Schools for the Future's career. It
:35:50. > :35:57.could just be she's a -- Miss Gillard's career.
:35:57. > :36:02.It could be that she is inept? is true, but should her Prime
:36:02. > :36:07.Ministership or ineptness should go seen through the prism of her hair
:36:07. > :36:09.or her high heels. It has been?I believe if the same prism was
:36:09. > :36:13.applied to David Cameron or Margaret Thatcher, I don't think
:36:13. > :36:17.this electorate would tolerate it. That is a very interesting point,
:36:17. > :36:23.because it also wasn't applying to your leader, Mr Abott? I think if
:36:23. > :36:33.you look at what's happened today, Julia Gillard when she took over
:36:33. > :36:37.from Kevin Rudd, discredited after his first go at leadership. Her
:36:37. > :36:42.ratings went through the roof. People warmed to the idea of a
:36:42. > :36:46.female Prime Minister. When it came down to it she broke a lot of
:36:46. > :36:50.promises, everything she touched was incompetent, she suffered
:36:50. > :37:00.hugely. That was the result today. Your leader delivered a speech
:37:00. > :37:06.under a banner that said "ditch the witch"? Tony Abott
:37:06. > :37:11.is...Sophisticated! Any suggestion that a leader of a modern day party
:37:11. > :37:16.was misogynist or anti-women has no future. Tony is a long way ahead in
:37:16. > :37:20.the polls because he appeals to a wide section of the community,
:37:20. > :37:24.including women. You have to give it to your country, is it your
:37:24. > :37:33.country? In my heart.Australia has a higher proportion of women in
:37:33. > :37:37.parliament than we do here? Does it? Just??I think you "just" is
:37:37. > :37:41.the question. I just might pick up on the point about being embraced.
:37:41. > :37:46.Gillard being embraced. When she was Deputy Prime Minister she was
:37:46. > :37:50.pilloried for a photo shoot in her kitchen. Because her cabinets were
:37:50. > :37:54.not messy enough, didn't look used. So even before she became Prime
:37:54. > :37:58.Minister. That is because they weren't being used. She had been
:37:58. > :38:05.away on holiday if I recall correctly? She just isn't much a
:38:05. > :38:08.cook at home. So what. She's a very good knitter, apparently? That was
:38:08. > :38:12.potentionally probble. If you are foolish enough as a woman to
:38:12. > :38:17.present yourself, or a man, to present yourself knitting a woolly
:38:17. > :38:22.kangaroo for the royal birth, how do you expect to be treated?
:38:22. > :38:25.think that is the point. I have to agree with you there. I think that
:38:25. > :38:32.people didn't really understand who Julia Gillard was. Everything that
:38:32. > :38:36.she did seemed to be a set-up stunt. This was the Australian public
:38:37. > :38:41.wanting Julia Gillard as a person. I don't think it was due to her
:38:41. > :38:45.gender but a lack of genuineness on her behalf. She was in a mint
:38:45. > :38:51.minority Government with a party behind her that was consistently
:38:51. > :38:56.undermining her. As we saw overnight her challenger constantly
:38:56. > :39:00.behind her in the shadow. What do we learn from Australia with this
:39:00. > :39:03.episode? I'm not sure what we learn, as an Australian the public
:39:03. > :39:08.discourse, the political discourse at the moment is embarrassing. I'm
:39:08. > :39:12.not sure that you learn very much at all. Is it true that when Julia
:39:13. > :39:17.Gillard made that speech in parliament, in which show attacked
:39:17. > :39:22.misogyny in Australian politics, actually there was much more
:39:22. > :39:25.attention paid elsewhere in the world than there ever was in
:39:25. > :39:28.Australia? Absolutely true. What she was doing in parliament was
:39:28. > :39:33.defending a speaker of the house of representatives whose number she
:39:33. > :39:37.needed, because he had made the most abhorrent comments about
:39:37. > :39:43.female genitalia. So on the one hand she was attacking misogyny,
:39:43. > :39:48.but on the other hand defending someone who made offensive comments.
:39:48. > :39:51.It attracted more attention outside Australia than in it? It says a lot
:39:51. > :39:58.about the media in Australia, it has been hostile to Julia Gillard
:39:58. > :40:02.all the way through. It took 18 hours for the parliamentary press
:40:02. > :40:05.gallery in Canberra to realise this speech had literally gone viral.
:40:05. > :40:10.think again, I think people in Australia understood the context
:40:10. > :40:13.this was a set-up. It was another stunt by Julia Gillard to try to
:40:13. > :40:17.turn around the disastrous poll ratings, the disastrous performance
:40:17. > :40:23.of had her Government and not something born out of genuineness.
:40:23. > :40:28.The import of what she was saying still resonated. The comment taken
:40:28. > :40:31.out of context did resonate. But Australia is proud to have had a
:40:31. > :40:35.female Prime Minister, I think it is a very great pity it has ended
:40:35. > :40:39.the way it has. Do you think it will be as easy next time for a
:40:39. > :40:42.woman or harder? I hope it doesn't make a difference. We do have a lot
:40:42. > :40:47.of leaders, the deputy leader of my heart is a woman. We still do have
:40:47. > :40:51.a lot of senior women in Australian politics. I hope they are not put
:40:51. > :40:58.off by what has happened today. That is the sad part, young women
:40:58. > :41:02.looking at politics potentially as a career would see this kind of end
:41:02. > :41:06.for as you traia's -- Australia's first Prime Minister as scary, and
:41:06. > :41:11.what came before it more so. Thank you very much. While we have
:41:11. > :41:15.been on air, two of Fleet Street's, or what used to be called Fleet
:41:15. > :41:22.Street's he had stores have been looking at tomorrow morning's
:41:22. > :41:29.newspapers. We have the new editor of the Independent. Aged? 29 Jeremy.
:41:29. > :41:34.Aged 29. Just old enough to be your grandson. You can aspire! And
:41:34. > :41:39.Lionel Barber has been editor of the FT for much longer than that.
:41:39. > :41:43.Not 29 years? Almost eight years, Jeremy. Twice the age of the
:41:43. > :41:46.gentleman to the left, but we will get the facts out on to the table.
:41:46. > :41:50.I don't want to be embarrassed later. Let's talk about newspapers,
:41:50. > :41:56.I guess who has chosen the Independent? I think I have chosen
:41:56. > :42:00.that. Rightly so. What a fantastic- looking front page. We had a lot of
:42:00. > :42:05.the stuff about Spending Reviews a day early. The question today was
:42:05. > :42:09.what particular line we want to go on, Andy Grice, the best political
:42:09. > :42:14.editor in Fleet Street said there was great excitement in Westminster
:42:14. > :42:18.about this idea that payday lenders are going to benefit hugely from
:42:18. > :42:24.the delay when you can take your benefits. It used to be three days
:42:24. > :42:29.and now sevens days. There is limited evidence that it will save,
:42:29. > :42:33.money and it will get people back into the job market. We have
:42:33. > :42:38.rounded up lots of evidence about how it will make people who are
:42:38. > :42:42.poor, poorer. That is enough fantastic, financial sometimes, I
:42:42. > :42:46.imagine you might have chosen this one? No, the news editor has chosen
:42:46. > :42:52.this particular splash. It is interesting because there were some
:42:52. > :42:57.very important statements about austerity lasting way into the next
:42:57. > :43:04.parliament, the coherent now, of more confident Chancellor today. I
:43:04. > :43:09.think he is strutting his stuff a little. I thought so.You know he
:43:09. > :43:13.was confident when he was dropping his "t" like Tony Blair. Because he
:43:13. > :43:19.knows that the Labour Party has accepted his spending cuts plan.
:43:19. > :43:24.What is interesting about this particular story in the FT, because
:43:24. > :43:29.we are highlighting, as you did tonight, this dramatic overspend on
:43:29. > :43:32.HS2. What kind of return are we going to get on this infrastructure
:43:32. > :43:38.project? Not very much I would submit. Why is it being favoured.
:43:38. > :43:41.Is it to bridge the gap between north and south? No, because it is
:43:41. > :43:49.a project that can get up and running. This cost is going to get
:43:49. > :43:54.higher and it will be ending up being named the Lord Adonis
:43:54. > :43:58.memorial railway. Let's go on to the Telegraph. George Osborne
:43:58. > :44:04.wielding the welfare axe. That wasn't a surprise?. No. I know
:44:04. > :44:09.welfare is a big part of our spending, but Osbourne seemed to
:44:09. > :44:18.enjoy talking more as he went on. By the enof the speech it was
:44:18. > :44:22.entirely on well from. What he was talking about at the end of largely
:44:22. > :44:26.about jobseeker's allowance, a tiny fraction of Government spending.
:44:26. > :44:30.When you have made political decisions to project a huge amount
:44:30. > :44:35.of your spending on the NHS, pensions, aid and all the rest of
:44:35. > :44:41.it, there is something ugly about focusing on such a small piece. You
:44:41. > :44:46.will say that welfare is going up and up and up as a portion of
:44:46. > :44:53.Government spending. I wasn't going to say that. What I was going to
:44:53. > :44:57.say is clearly this goes before the election campaign. Mr Osborne wants
:44:57. > :45:00.to draw a dividing line between what he calls strivers and slackers.
:45:00. > :45:05.In one respect this is important, because although he appears to be
:45:05. > :45:09.capping or limited welfare cut, with an ageing society, it is going
:45:09. > :45:13.to present serious pressure on the budget. And there are questions
:45:13. > :45:23.about the future shape of the state, not answered today, for all the
:45:23. > :45:29.talk about cutting Whitehall, some departments hurt more than others.
:45:29. > :45:32.It isn't fantastic that in George Osborne who has made a career about
:45:32. > :45:35.standing against and hating Gordon Brown, this is completely out of
:45:36. > :45:39.the Gordon Brown textbook. Dividing lines, using economics as a pretext
:45:39. > :45:41.to what is a political narrative. This is the sort of thing you would
:45:42. > :45:47.expect from Gordon Brown. Nobody has pointed out today, certainly
:45:47. > :45:50.not on this show, the spending we view he didn't want to make, if he
:45:50. > :45:55.met his own targets he wouldn't be there. That have the very first
:45:55. > :46:00.line of tonight's programme? Really! Pay attention.You should
:46:00. > :46:04.have been more articulated when you said it. You weren't nearly clear
:46:04. > :46:09.enough. It couldn't have been clearer, even for you. Let as try
:46:09. > :46:14.and raise the tone. On the Guardian, this is what I was referring to
:46:14. > :46:20.earlier that austerity is going to go way into the next parliament and
:46:20. > :46:30.it is the cuts that keep on coming, a nice little headline there. And
:46:30. > :46:34.strong, there is the picture of the Chancellor with his mojo back.
:46:34. > :46:39.Do you want to talk about right honourable gentlemaner Federer or
:46:39. > :46:43.spending. So we have had -- Roger Federer or spending. We have had
:46:43. > :46:50.seven number ones dropping out. People have said tennis has become
:46:50. > :46:55.boring, it has become fatastically unpredictable. We led with Federer
:46:55. > :46:59.and Sharpova and the amazing phenomenon of people slipping over.
:46:59. > :47:02.It is slightly wet surfaces that were maybe covered for slightly too
:47:02. > :47:07.long mean all these people were falling over at Wimbledon today,
:47:07. > :47:12.and Federer is one of them. I can't follow that up. I know that Andy
:47:12. > :47:18.Murray is still in, and I think, look, he has been a great champion