20/03/2016 Sunday Politics London

Iain Duncan Smith follows up his resignation with a blistering

attack on George Osborne, saying some of the Chancellor's

budget measures are deeply unfair and damaging to the country.

It's being seen as a direct attack on Chancellor Osborne -

are his leadership hopes now holed below the waterline?

And with ministers now close to civil war over IDS's resignation,

can David Cameron keep the warring factions of his government together?

The headlines say a green light for CrossRail 2.

But with questions over who pays, is the

And with me, as always, the best and the brightest political

panel in the business - Nick Watt, Isabel Oakeshott

and Janan Ganesh, who'll be tweeting throughout the programme

So, George Osborne unveiled a Budget which he hoped

would satisfy the Tory faithful generate a feel-good factor

in the run up to the EU referendum and enhance his own leadership

That strategy started to come off the rails within 24 hours

as the Chancellor faced Tory revolts on four fronts.

And was blown to smithereens on Friday night when welfare

secretary Iain Duncan Smith resigned over savings to disability payments.

This morning open warfare is breaking out

We'll be devoting the next half hour to this story,

with analysis and comment from Nick, Isabel and Janan and interviews

with the shadow work and pensions secretary Owen Smith,

the Conservative backbencher Heidi Allen, and the head

of the Institute for Fiscal Studies Paul Johnson.

First, Giles Dilnot reports on the very public falling out

at the top of David Cameron's government.

When the Chancellor gets badly hurt in an attack from his own side,

we shouldn't be surprised where it came

Iain Duncan Smith and George Osborne whenever was buddies

and they are on the opposite sides of the EU

But for nearly six years, they've worked together

in government, delivering welfare reform and savings.

Last July, when the Chancellor announced the living

Those currently on the minimum wage will see that pay rise

And whilst in polling, there was popular support

for balancing the books and reforming welfare,

there was also angry protest, especially from disabled people

who passionately believed they had been targeted

The deepest wound a Work and Pensions

Secretary could inflict on his own governments,

On Wednesday we were touted a budget that would be dull,

not much wriggle room or rabbits, sugared or otherwise.

Nonetheless, the Chancellor and wannabe PM was

The richest 1% pay 28% of all income tax revenue,

a higher proportion than in any single year

Proof that we are all in this together.

But not so for many disabled people and enough Tory MPs,

On welfare, last week my right honourable friend the Secretary

of State for Work and Pensions, set out changes that will ensure

that within the rising disability budget, support is better

It was a confirmation of changes that just 48 hours later would see

a resignation letter from the man the Chancellor was referring to

questioning if enough is being done to ensure

These were changes to personal independence payments that have

replaced disability living allowance, that would make it more

likely large numbers of recipients got less money,

and in some cases much less, in future.

Something he regarded as a compromise too far.

According to Mr Duncan Smith, the changes had demanded because too

much emphasis on money-saving exercises and that his welfare

to work reforms could not be repeatedly

By this weekend, the government s unofficial paramedic

was dispatched to patch up the internal wounds,

Mr Duncan Smith's literary cuts had inflicted.

by the whole Cabinet on Wednesday morning before the Chancellor

And he was obviously part of that process.

These proposals came from his department.

And the PM's response to the letter stressed...

In the hours after the budget, amid angry

rumblings from the backbenches, suddenly the government

where describing and announced policy

Something that has been put forward, there has been a review,

And the suggestion the next day from the PM

We are going to discuss what we put forward

with the disability charities and others, as the Chancellor said

It is important this increase in money

goes to the people who need it the most.

The problem is, the internal party concerns were that it looked

like money was going to those that didn't need it most.

The headline rate of capital gains tax currently stands at 28%.

I am cutting the capital gains tax paid by basic rate

Iain Duncan Smith said the disability

reforms couldn't be defended within a budget that benefits

I'm told this was the most toxic aspect for a large number

who'd considered resignation over this.

But not everyone was sorry to see him go.

The problems have been at the heart of the DWP.

I do not see eye to eye with the Treasury,

I'm not the Chancellor's biggest supporter,

shall we say, but the reality is, in all the experiences I've had

the problems have been with an evangelical point of view,

They have consistently failed disabled people

As Stephen Crabb takes on work and pensions,

But clearly the quiet man reflected if

you're going to turn up the volume at all,

best rattle the windows of Downing Street.

A war of words has now broken out in Iain Duncan Smith's

old department, with one junior minister accusing him

of "shocking" behaviour, but three other ministers rounding

Mr Duncan Smith gave his first post-resignation interview to Andrew

Anybody who thinks this is a here today, gone tomorrow

I am genuinely frustrated, I have no personal ambitions. If I never go

back into government again, I will not cry about that, it is not my

ambition. I came into this government, and let me be clear I

came into this government because I cared about welfare reform. I spent

eight years in social justice trying to figure out why certain

communities were so badly off and how could we get them back to work

and solve that one. Everything I have done has been driven by my

desire to improve the quality of life for the worst. We can debate my

policies, but my motivation has always been a bad back. My motive

now, I am concerned that I want to succeed and it cannot do the things

it should because it is too focused on narrowly getting the deficit down

without saying where it should for. Minutes later the energy

secretary Amber Rudd, popped up to attack her former

cabinet colleague - saying she resents Mr Duncan Smith's

"high moral tone". I do remain perplexed. It indicated

he was making progress. He wrote a letter on Thursday night saying what

he was doing and why we should support it. So I don't understand. I

do remain perplexed about it, but I am disappointed. This is an man I

sat a cabinet with for nearly a year. He was a cabinet minister for

nearly six years. I do respect him, so to suddenly launch a bombshell on

the rest of us in a way that is difficult for us all to understand,

is disappointing. It is the Tory party now in open welfare and it is

not easily quelled? If Amber Rudd is perplexed, it is a dereliction of

duty on her part to understand what has been going on in her own

Administration. In a way, there is nothing sudden about this for Iain

Duncan Smith, it has been brewing for a long time. She has known that.

He has been rustling for a long time whether he can do better, staying

where he is and operating within the difficult constraints the Treasury

has imposed on him. Or whether he is better off out and saying what he

really thinks. That is what tipped him over the edge. The Downing

Street strategy is to paint Iain Duncan Smith as a kind of,

head-banging Eurosceptic and try to pretend it is all about the EU

referendum. I don't think anyone who watched Iain Duncan Smith this

morning giving that powerful interview to Andrew Marr, could

really doubt that what this is about is Iain Duncan Smith's real desire

to do the right thing by the disadvantaged. The rest is just

noises off. When you look at some of these clips come he comes out

against the welfare cap, to arbitrate. If you are sitting in the

Labour Party right now, you will be cutting up that interview and

pouring it out at every opportunity. This story will go on and on? I

interviewed Iain Duncan Smith about two months after the 2010 election.

He said if George Osborne wants me to be a cheese parer and do

arbitrate cuts, I will be out. Isabel says commie has been rustling

for six years with this. He came into this after the visit to the

Easterhouse estate in Glasgow. He had in Europe and championed the

vulnerable. He came to it with a mission to try and increase

incentives for the low paid to combat to work. To George Osborne,

it is the bottom line. But it is not going to go away, you have the

extraordinary spectacle of three ministers in his former department,

pretty Patel included, putting out statements in support of the Iain

Duncan Smith. And you have the pensions minister delivering a

Downing Street script saying this is about Europe, even though there is

not a word about Europe in Iain Duncan Smith's statement. Ross

Altman, who was unhappy with Downing Street and the Treasury on the

pension changes coming out and delivering what Downing Street one.

It is a mess and it shows the normal discipline you would expect in

government really is a challenge but the referendum. It is over the

George Osborne? If wasn't on the budget. Tax credits last summer

reversal on pension reforms this year. And now this, you cannot

deliver but on Wednesday which is just a proposition by Thursday

evening and by Friday evening provokes a senior Cabinet colleagues

resignation. It is bad for him. The government should be able to

stun them month after a general election Monday, ... And start with

them all going in different ways during the referendum, it could get

worse. They need this referendum out of the way as quickly as possible.

They need a comfortable victory by would suggest, with the remaining

side, David Cameron's side to have any chance of putting a look on

this. In four years' time, at a general election will determine

George Osborne's leadership chances? Quite possibly. I don't know how the

Chancellor will put this back together again if you EU referendum

campaign. It might not just be a Osborne's future on the line, it

could be the Prime Minister's the Chancellor's fate if tied to the

Prime Minister. They are the project, they have worked together

to make the Conservatives electable again. It George Osborne goes down,

David Cameron's position is in doubt. I am not suggesting we care

at this point, the it is destabilising.

And don't forget Cameron has never been master of these events. As

ever, he ain't controlling it. As we know, these things have a life of

their own, so it should keep us busy.

Iain Duncan Smith's resignation has been simmering for some time

but it was triggered by plans to make cuts to disability benefits

A few days before George Osborne's budget, the government previewed

plans to change the way claimants were assessed for certain disability

benefits, saving ?1.3 billion a year. The office of budgetary

responsibility said the changes to the personal independence payments,

or Pips, would adversely affect 370,000 people by 2020. The amount

of Paire pick a person receives is decided by awarding points based on

need -- the amount of PIP. Grab rails, personal toilet seats,

arguing people would audit have these items. Iain Duncan Smith

resigned, saying the changes were not responsible. Replying to the

resignation, the Prime Minister said it had now been agreed not to

proceed with the policies in their current form. But that wasn't the

only major criticism levelled at George Osborne's budget. The

Chancellor confirmed he will miss Fiorentina of his three fiscal

rules. Next financial year, welfare bill cost almost ?120 billion, well

over the cap of ?115 billion, which he introduced himself to restrict

overall welfare spending. And he also broke his debt rule, which

promised that national debt would decline every year as a proportion

of national income. This financial year, total debt is expected to be

83.7% of GDP, up from 83.3% in 2014-15.

We did ask the Government for an interview about the disability

But we were told no one was available.

It's a familiar refrain these days, especially when the government

I'm joined now by the head of the Institute for

Welcome to the programme. It looks like the government is making a

U-turn on these cuts to disability payments, how big a haul does that

blow in the Chancellor's efforts to get a budget surplus by 2020? The

truth is we are talking very small numbers in the context of ?800

billion a year or so of spending. The Chancellor is aiming for nearly

a billion pound surplus, he doesn't get this, it takes just down to

under ten, so in that sense it doesn't matter all that much to his

target the 2020. But he has already inked in 3.5 billion of unspecified

cuts, we don't know what they would be to get this surplus, but there

are about eight or 9 billion of watch some might call

jiggery-pokery, cuts to public investment in the final year, and

now this. It must make it more difficult for them. There are all

sorts of things in the budget aimed at that particular year. Numbers are

being moved around and there are some unspecified spending cuts. It

is important to see this in the broader context. Unless something

awful happens, we will get close to a budget balance in 2019-20, which

given that we were over 150 billion in deficit in 2010, the biggest

deficit in his time that we have had, to get from their too close to

surplus will be quite an achievement. Economically and

politically understand it matters enormously, but economically, the

difference between a ?10 billion surplus and the deficit is almost

hear the dash-mac when neither here nor there.

The Treasury would expect that department to find ?1.3 billion

elsewhere, is that right? Not necessarily, this is unlike the

health budget or the education budget, it is determined by the

demands on the budget. So I think if they don't put these changes in the

presumption will be at least that the spending will still be in the

budget. The day after the budget, you said the Chancellor had only a

50-50 chance of filling his surplus in 2020. Would you like to

recalibrate these odds? It is a relatively small change in the

context of where we are, still a 50-50 shot. The thing that will

determine it is much less changes of this kind and parsley more what

happens to the economy, whether the economy does better or worse than

currently expected. In many ways, the most important thing we learned

on Wednesday is that the O BR has much less optimistic about the

economy, and therefore we will all be worse off than we thought we were

going to be. The Treasury, as Iain Duncan Smith has been saying, has

been clawing away at working age benefits the years, for him this was

the final straw. But isn't that inevitable, if you have a government

who ring fences pensions and the NHS, the only big travel figure

spending line is welfare? If you are looking, like the government has

been common to really dramatically reduce the deficit significantly,

you are not going to avoid doing things on the welfare side. Much

more than ?100 billion was spent on just working age welfare, covered by

that welfare cap, which is far more than we spend on almost anything

else, apart from health service and pensions. But the Chancellor has

created this fiscal position. Even though it was weaker, he cut

business rates, he cut corporation tax, capital gains tax, he raised

the personal allowance, and he raised 40p income tax threshold He

didn't have to do any of that. Even if he had done only some of that, he

would not have had to look for these cuts in disability for study has

made that himself will stop you are right, she didn't have to make any

of those changes, but it was very clearly in the Conservative

manifesto to increase the personal allowance. So presuming that he

would have kept the manifesto changes, he would have had to have

done that, and has to do quite a lot more route. Cutting those taxes

clearly means you have to do some other things to maintain his target.

But he didn't have to do them. Also, perhaps his leadership tensions did

play a part. There were two major areas where they could have raised a

lot of money, pension reform, by taking away the top tax-free, which

could have saved billions, and raising the fuel duty. If you don't

visit now, when will you? Both could have raised billions and he chose

not to do it. Those are two very different kinds of things. Yes, you

are right, it is astonishing with petrol prices at their lowest level

for a very long time, chatty on petrol at its lowest level since the

mid-19 90s, the cost of driving a car at its lowest level for perhaps

30 years. If you can't increase fuel duties even then, that is a

long-term problem for the Treasury, because it brings in a lot of money,

?30 billion a year, and if that goes it is a real problem. On pension tax

will if it is a much more complex issue. There are good economic

arguments, for maintaining it as we have at the moment, and had you got

rid of that 40% relief, you would have hit the 5 million or so people

who pay 40% tax, it would have been another slice of the population

rather unhappy. The national debt, not the deficit, will be 1.7 4

trillion by 20 20. If the government was then to run a surplus of say 10

billion a year for ten years, which would be unprecedented in British

government, after a decade, the debt would still, by my simple rhythmic

calculation, the ?1.64 trillion Is that what you mean by economically

irrelevant in running a surplus The key point about the size of the debt

is it is size as a fraction of national income. More important than

the absolute level. As the -- even running a surplus of 10 billion or

so a year, you don't get too prerecession levels of debt until

the mid 2030s. The argument the Chancellor would make the running a

surplus year after year is that even if you just run a balanced budget,

it takes quite a lot of time just to undo the damage that the crisis did.

Joining me now from Glasgow is the Shadow Work and Pensions

Owen Smith, in his resignation letter, Iain Duncan Smith says it is

now time to look at ending the protection of pensions. Do you agree

with that? I don't think that should be the first thing they look at at

all, Andrew. I think the very clear message that Iain Duncan Smith

himself has delivered is their word choices that could have been made in

the budget, and the Chancellor made them and he made the wrong ones

coming chose to cut the benefits from disabled people. As we have

heard, the PIP cuts taking many thousands of pounds away from the

370,000 people, and instead he chose that he was going to cut corporation

tax, which he -- is going to benefit large countries in this country and

he chose to cut capital gains tax, which were largely benefit people

who have got a bit of money. So I think there were different changes

he could have made even within the terms of this budget that would have

been much fairer. I understand that, but which are nevertheless have

thinks it the benefits? -- ring fenced? We need to look at all these

things long-term, but it would be for a Labour government when we get

closer to the next election to the absolute specifics on all of those

pension benefits, but by and large, let's be clear. The last Labour

government worked incredibly hard to raise pensioners out of poverty We

were incredibly successful in that regard, a million pensioners lifted

out of poverty under the last Labour government and I don't think they

ought to be the target for cuts just as I don't believe that

disabled people ought to be. There are myriad other choices the

government could have taken. Iain Duncan Smith today I think has been

very honest in explaining how George Osborne could have taken different

choices, should have done, and in his words he is dividing Britain,

moving away from any notion of us all being in it together. But you

are committed to balancing current spending, but if you have ring

fenced pensions, as you have told us this morning, presumably you would

ring fence the NHS, or even add to spending in the NHS, and you want to

ring fence nearly all of welfare as well. Where do the cuts come from

the balance current spending? I have just given you two, let's be very

specific, Labour would be saying today if it were our budget, that we

would not have done the cuts to corporation tax, that would have

given us in year ?600 million, and we would not have done the cut to

capital gains tax, that would give us another ?600 million. That nets

off the PIP cuts annually, the 1.2 billion, and there are other similar

choices we could look at. We would not have taken corporation tax back

to 19%. We would have been taking far more from large multinational

companies than this government is. So far you have given me 1.2

billion, but you have announced much more than that in spending plans. So

I am not quite clear how it is you would balance current spending,

because I think we can both agree an extra 1.2 billion went to do it

will it? No, but a corporation tax alone by 2020 would be giving us

?2.5 billion, if we were to revert back to the April 2015 rate of 0%.

We would still have a corporation tax in this country that was 10

lower than Germany, 15% lower than America, 10% lower than Australia.

It would be an extremely competitive rate of tax. I just highlight that

?1 billion example, ?3 billion example, how we would make different

choices. Right, but as I say, in many of your spending plans you have

already spent that sort of money. You also talk about fair taxes, you

would not cut the corporation tax any further, what else to you mean

by fair taxes? What would you raise by fair taxes? As I said a minute

ago, we can't for years out from a budget before, a pre-election budget

from Labour, tell you precisely what all of our spending plans will be, I

don't think that is a reasonable thing to ask any opposition

government to do but I think we are setting very clear indicators about

what we think the benefits would be. Give us another example. It is

reflective of our belief that those who have the largest amounts of

money ought to bear the largest burden in our society. It is unclear

whether that raises you very much. The government's own analysis showed

there was ?3 billion forgone in cutting that top rate of tax. I now

see they are trying to argue they have somehow applied a famous curve

and ?8 billion they have made. I think corporation tax shows you very

clearly, corporation tax receipts have been flat, they have managed to

cut from 28% to 20% in the last six years, and the amount of receipts we

are getting in has gone from 43 billion to 43 billion. Investment

has decreased. What are used to call sickness

benefit comes to over 50 billion pounds a year. You would leave it

untouched? No, we want to reform the system. Take for example, Iain

Duncan Smith made a lot about universal credit this morning. He

has said George Osborne has stripped out the guts of universal credit. I

was asking about disability? Some people who are disabled will be in

receipt of universal credit. What would you do about the disability 50

billion pounds annual budget? We wouldn't be making the changes the

current government are proposing. They are lying to the British public

about this, spending on the disabled is increasing. If you take all

disability benefits, I am publishing figures today that say it has

declined around 60% that the government have already cut disabled

benefits. -- 6%. That will not be my target. Would you keep this increase

in the threshold for people who enter the 40% tax bracket? Yes, we

would keep that. It is fair to say the fiscal drag of people being

pulled into the 40p rate has been increasing. I think we will need to

reform taxation much more fundamentally. I still think the key

thing today is we have got to understand George Osborne is the man

in the dock. I am going to have to stop you there. We look forward to

talking to you in the future about your plans for tax reform. Now let's

go to the Conservative MP who has spearheaded the back bench

opposition to George Osborne's tax cuts. Was a Iain Duncan Smith right

to resign? He was coming he had reached a point where he had had

enough of the purse strings being pulled so he couldn't deliver the

welfare reform he wanted to. He had no option. Mr Cameron says he is

puzzled by the resignation and the position of the government on these

welfare reforms and cuts had been collectively agreed. I am learning,

I am still a relatively new MP. You I am still a relatively new MP. You

can keep your powder dry for I am still a relatively new MP. You

long, you are convinced by the whips that this is the right thing to do.

Your conscience will kick in, it did for me last year over tax credits.

The rumblings are more open this year than they were last year over

tax credits. Iain Duncan Smith looked around him and saw many MP is

saying how unhappy they were and he couldn't proceed any longer. Would

you have been one of the rebels if the government had proceeded with

what was in the budget for the disability payments? Absolutely I

would have been. Iain Duncan Smith, perhaps under Treasury pressure over

the years has presided over a number of cuts to welfare. Now he is

resigning over a cut that isn't going to happen, as far as we can

make out. What is the logic in that? The first thing to say, I cannot say

the certain it wouldn't have happened. I have had no letter or

e-mail coming from the Treasury saying we will be looking at it

again. A lot of what has been cut from Iain Duncan Smith's point of

view, so the tax credit taper rate, universal taper rate, PIP, it has

been coming thick and fast. He has had to deliver what it was

revolutionary welfare reforms. He wanted to do them the right way

Everything I talked about in my maiden speech about doing it gently

and allowing the minimum wage to rise. The Treasury whole the purse

strings and they stopped him delivering the policies the way he

wanted to. Given what happened to tax credits, which was a move to

take away some welfare benefits from the working poor, is it not puzzling

the Chancellor then moved in to an even more difficult group to deal

with, in terms of taking things away, into the disabled and seem to

have learned nothing from the tax credit U turn? I guess we will see

in the days and weeks to come. It is not just PIP, you will remember the

extra payment given to claimants who had been ill for a long time and

were returning to work. I voted against that also. I hope Stephen

Crabb, the new Secretary of State will have a conversation with the

Treasury and this will be brought to the table. We have made some poor

decisions. Some of the areas of taxation we have opted for instead,

are wrong. It doesn't send the right message that as a Conservative Party

we can look after everybody in society. It is only the

Conservatives who can, because we do need the strong economy to deliver

any of this. But it has got to come back to the table and we have got to

start again. Is it your view it wouldn't be enough just to tinker

with what the government was planning to do with the personal

mobility independent payments and do what it did with tax credits, which

was to scrap what it was planning to do and start again? I have spoken to

a lot of disability charities. I am putting myself through and Mark PIP

assessment because I want to feel what it is like. It just doesn't

work that so many groups of ill and disabled people. Tinkering with two

tiny point isn't good enough. We need to look at the whole process

and start from scratch and work with these charities, who understand the

pressures put on these people so we have a system that works for them.

Your party is in open warfare this morning, you have a resignation and

people are referring to you as the nasty party. How big a crisis is

this for the Conservatives? I have been thinking about this this

morning. I am trying to keep my own wooden spoon in my kitchen drawer. I

think, in a funny sort of way, because there has been so much focus

on the EU, this might lead the sense check we need. All MPs are good

people trying to do the best they can. This could be the slap to the

face we all need that says hang on, get back together and sort ourselves

out. We are the party that should be looking after people. In fact, I

think it could bring us together. If you are to be brought together for a

fresh start from tax credit to disability payments, is George

Osborne still the right Chancellor to do it? It depends how he responds

to the challenge. I am hoping so. The jury is still out? Yes. Are his

chances to be Prime Minister below the water line? Sometimes the

strength of a man is how he picks himself up from a fall. So let's see

how he responds. If this is attempted to be brushed under the

carpet, I think his chances are over. If he lets himself up and

shows he is listening, making mistakes is OK, providing you

correct them before they affect people. He did that with tax

credits. Some ways it was a big thing because it would have affected

millions and millions of people But we need to wait and see what he is

going to do with this. Your wooden spoon is always welcome on this

programme. It's just gone 11.35,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now First, though, the Sunday

Politics where you are. A green light for the Crossrail to

project. Joining me for the duration

of the show - Conservative MP for Putney and Secretary of State

for International Development Justine Greening and her

Labour Shadow and MP for Hackney North and Stoke

Newington, Diane Abbott. It won't have slipped

the Chancellor's mind when drawing up his budget for this year,

that the capital has an election for Mayor in less than 50

days from now. Keeping the capital sweet,

or at the very least not overly angry with the Conservative

government, would seem This week gave George Osborne under

the budget and another opportunity to pose with the hard hat. He would

like this to be applied to Crossrail two. It didn't stop him getting a

good gag out of it. The government delivering Crossrail one will now

commission Crossrail two. I know this commitment to Crossrail two

will be welcomed by the leader opposition, the writer Honourable

member for Islington. It could have been designed just for him because

it is good for those living in north London and are heading south. There

was also plans to give the London mayor more money in the form of

business rates. It will help make up the cut to the Transport for London

budget announced last year. That it means the mayor can spend it on

anything, not just transport. What we are going to see is a significant

shift. City Hall, they have wanted for a long time. Now I think it will

mean Transport for London has to do far more of what the next mayor and

their deputies one that has been directly true in the past. Transport

for London are said to have opposed the change. Obviously, they're

concerned that a future mayor would spend some of those funds towards

non-transport things. I would advise against that. But one area the

budget didn't have much on, is the topic that has been dominating so

far, housing. It might be that the future mayor thinks that is the best

way to spend our money than on transport. Can you claim a green

light the Crossrail when the government is committed to spending

1% less than the total budget? I think the Chancellor set out another

big step forward in the plan to get Crossrail two done. We are seeing

Crossrail one being finished. After many, many years. And pushed forward

and completed under a Conservative led government. We are releasing the

money that is needed to take those details to the next step so it can

reach the full investment decision. ?80 million out of a price tag of 27

billion pounds is a drop in the ocean. 18 million is what we needed

to do the next stage of planning work so to understand what this

project will cost in totality. It is good news. -- 80 million. People can

try and throw stones at it, but the reality is, what the Chancellor

announced is another big step forward on the next major

infrastructure plan the London, which is very welcome for many

people watching this programme. Is it a priority for you, Crossrail

two? It is a priority for London, but it is not a big step step

forward. He has stopped short of scrapping Crossrail two, which is a

good thing. Jeremy Corbyn said it shouldn't go ahead before

improvements to railways in the north of England. Siddique Khan

Labour's candidate for mayor has said Crossrail is vital for future

prosperity and we need to get it built as possible and Jeremy Corbyn

should know that. Who is right? Jeremy has said it might have been

better if we had gone ahead with those planned Northern Rail

improvements before this announcement with Crossrail two But

Jeremy and Siddique know it is not either or. We need to be investing

in transport infrastructure. Where would you find the rest of the

money? Crossrail one was funded partly by TfL, partly by the private

sector. We have to look at how those two funding streams can happen in

the future. What about the fair pay? It was originally called the Chelsea

Hackney line and it would be great for people from Chelsea be able to

move to Hackney and see what a wonderful world we have. Can you

justify spending billions on a jazzy new railway line from Chelsea,

rather than on international development? It is doing much more

than linking Hackney to Chelsea It is going under the river to link up

Wimbledon and all of those suburban lines that connect into Wimbledon,

it is a more strategic North, South line. If you think what Crossrail

one has done, it has been East, West. This is going north to south.

We shouldn't forget how much investment has gone in on the rest

of London's transport system. So for my constituents in Putney, getting

on new, longer air-conditioned district line tubes, finally seeing

extra carriages been put onto South West trains, finally seeing, after

years, Waterloo Station being refitted so more commuter lines can

go in. It is not just Crossrail two, it is other investment on transport.

But it still comes down to how it will be funded and you want money

out of the private sector. It took a very long time the Crossrail one to

beat completed. It was one of the first stories I cover 25 years ago.

But Siddique Khan thing Crossrail two is less likely to happen, surely

I'm sorry I made that joke about going from Hackney to Chelsea. It

always gets me into trouble. It is ready important for regeneration,

drops and for the economy nationally. Is that too much focus

on transport at the expense of housing, because there wasn't much

on housing in the budget. It is not either or. What we need to realise

is that all of these things, whether it is investing in housing, schools

or transport and jobs, they all go together. What we are building is

communities at the end of the day. If you look at the Crossrail to

project -- Crossrail two project,... So the transport has to come before

the housing, is that what you are saying? Zack is saying a really

sensible point, you need to have a full plan in place. The plans for

transport, other community services, in place, so that when people are

moving in and homes are built, everything is there they will need.

People will say housing is more critical, even Boris Johnson who I

have spoken to recently has said it has moved from transport to housing.

Is he right? Absolutely right, and that is why the Tories will lose

this mayoral election. One place in which TfL and housing overlap, TfL

are one of the biggest landowners in London, land which they are no

longer using. Under a Labour mayor, that land would be used for housing,

people can actually afford to live in, not luxury. I disagree with that

entirely actually. What I will resist is talking about just how few

homes labour built in the city, because in the end the only way we

are going to fix this housing crisis is by having a common plan that is

cross-party and then working together on it. Part of it is about

regenerating our council estate part of it is about women get

opportunities on transport investment, seeing what we can do

alongside that. It will only really succeed if we can have a long-term

plan that is not constantly politicised and we were closer with

developers to make sure they can be in a position to properly develop

sites. There is no point working against them in the end because

actually you will end up with no homes. Housing did not get much of

an airing in the budget. One London issue that didn't

get much of an airing Before the Chancellor's speech,

Tim Donovan caught up with the two main Mayoral candidates and asked

them about foreign investors On some developments I've seen

in London 80% of the homes, before they have been

completed are sold off plan to investors in the

Middle East and Asia. One estate agent in London

last year marketed 7000 The worst thing that could happen

to London is people don't want to come here,

they don't want to live here, If that happens,

London is sunk. So we need to find a way to harness

that appetite to invest in London, To do that, I think

we can be very ambitious. Right, Diane Abbott, the thing about

foreign investors is they bring certainty and developers like that.

Yes, but they drive up prices. London has to stop being a

playground for developers. We have to start looking at how we how is

ordinary Londoners. I have estates in Dost and, new estates that were

sold before a brick had been put on top of another brick, sold off land

to investors overseas stock that is not sustainable. That is what has

caused to some extent the under community of London, and it has

pushed Londoners out. Answer the question that it has happened on

your watch. He has said something, Siddique Khan, which he must know is

wrong. It stops developers selling overseas fry for first year. Are you

saying there has not been an increase in foreign investors buying

up a swathe of central London real estate? There have always been

foreign investors buying flats. Though, Justine, any Londoners will

tell you the amount of foreign investment in London has gone

through the roof and it is driving Londoners out of the housing market.

But it has surely helped the economy? There has ways been foreign

investment in housing, but this is precisely the point was making, we

need to increasingly work together. I don't think there is a huge

difference between the political parties in London on understanding

that we want as many homes as possible that are being built in

London to be first of all affordable to Londoners and available to

Londoners. How do you do that, if you crack down on foreign buyers, it

will mean... If I can make a couple of other points, again what zack is

talking about, expanding shared ownership so people in average

incomes in the city can afford to buy homes. But also critically

helping people who just want to rent being a position on rent to buy so

they can steadily shift from renting the buying new homes when they are

built. When Justin talks about affordable homes, she means 80% of

private market rent. 80% of private rent... What you talking about?

Jenner rents that bear some relationship to average wages in

London. We have to call the developers's bluff. Like the

Scotland Yard site, the old Mount Pleasant site with super luxury

residential, we won't build anything, it is a blah. Let's finish

at there. Tomorrow, nominations open for those

wanting to run for Mayor. Alongside the expected parties,

a few of the lesser-known runners and riders might end up

on your ballot paper on 5 May. Those wanting to be Mayor will have

to stump up ?10,000 and get 10 signatures from residents in each

of London's 33 boroughs. I should warn you there

is some flash photography The fifth mayoral election

is fast approaching. But it will be the first

without Ken Livingstone and Boris Is this an opportunity

for the smaller parties? All these minor parties

offer a wider choice in what is an increasing fragmented

democracy in Britain. Go back to the 1950s, we'd have had

the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and

possibly a liberal, Now, the fragmentation

and of course, particularly in the London assembly

election, the opportunity because of proportional

representation for smaller parties to get elected

in a way that wouldn't have been Across the world, candidates

and parties outside the mainstream And of course, London's first

mayor Ken Livingstone won So what impact might the smaller

parties have this year? The political battle for women's

equality is an historical one but the women's equality party was

founded only last year. This is the first election they are contending.

We were formed out of a deep sense of frustration at the last general

election that women in this country were being treated as a special

interest group, rather than half of the population. If you are a woman

living in London, you are statistically more likely when set

against the rest of the UK to be out of a job, to be living in poverty

and to be in danger on the streets and on the public transport system,

and I think that is a number-1 priority for anyone who is serious

about running as mayor. From the newcomer to the political veteran.

Winston McKenzie ran for mayor as an independent in 2008 and has been a

member of seven parties his career. He is a member of the English

Democrats, which describes itself as England's version of the Scottish

Independence party. I have gained amazing experience, I am a people

man, I operate for the people, and the people shall be set free. The

English Democrats now stand a great chance of resurrecting themselves,

through Winston McKenzie, the champ, the man who has got his faculties

together, the community man. In London, the BNP has become some

success, coming the second party in Dagenham in 2006, and this man,

Richard Barbra, winning a seat on the London assembly in 2014. But

Nick Griffiths resigned and Electoral Commission was deselected

IS deregistered for failing to pay its fees and then re-registered The

number one priority is to get our message across, but above all we

want to have a hawk on immigration, a moratorium on immigration, because

it underpins a lot of the problems that London has been having. Severe

shortage of housing, congestion pollution, the NHS and the school

places. The other candidates don't acknowledge this but we do. So will

these parties on their own have any impact on the mayoral race, and will

their aggregated support have any impact on the final selection? The

final standings will be announced on 1st of April. Just Dean Greening,

will be smaller parties have any real impact on this race? It remains

to be seen, but I am interested to see there is a women's equality

party, certainly in my role improving the prospects of girls and

women is at the heart of our international developer and

strategy, and I think it really does matter that more women get involved

in politics here in the UK, and I'm very supportive of women running for

office. I think should see that more often. You think it will raise the

profile of those issues? Well the party get your second preference

votes? LAUGHTER You can tell ask you can be honest.

With that party get your second preference vote? I very much

sympathise with the aims of the women's equality party and it is a

shame that we are still having to fight the these issues now, but I

have always thought of them inside the Labour Party and I will continue

to do so. Last time I second preference was the Greens and that

will probably be the same this time. The plurality of parties, is that a

good thing, doesn't mean there is dwindling support for the two main

parties? I don't know that dwindling so much, I don't think these parties

you have had on your film will have much impact, a lot of what would

have been BNP support went to Ukip anyway. Does the re-emergence of the

BNP speak for a re-emergence of the white working underclass in London?

They are saying immigration is behind all of London problems, no,

immigration has made London a great city and most Londoners know that.

What would Zac Goldsmith do for women in London? I think he will

tackle a lot of the issues Sophie mentioned, around crime and

particularly violent crime, which is something certainly that bothers me

as a woman, as well as a local MP. Just more broadly, General

quality-of-life issues frankly are things that matter in my own

constituency of Putney. We have someone for open spaces, and I think

Zac will do a great job as mayor detecting that aspect of Londoners's

lives. It is not something that has been centrestage politically but I

think it really does matter. It is important to keep London's economy

going, too invest in its infrastructure and schools for

example, but at the end of the day people's environment when they come

out of the door really matters to them, and I think Zac will do a fab

job of taking care of that. You say you have these issues in the Labour

Party, does Jeremy Corbyn do enough in the cause of permitting women in

labour? He promoted me! LAUGHTER Are you the living environment of

that, then. Jeremy Zuttah always been committed to gender equality,

generally. As for the mayoral, Sadiq Khan I think will tackle the issue

that is most important London, housing, and also stand up for

London as a diverse and vibrant And now for the rest

of the news in sixty seconds. Four Tube line upgrades will be five

years late and almost ?1 billion over budget, after gross

mismanagement by Transport for London, according

to the London assembly. TfL spent ?85 million

paying of Bombardier, the firm originally

appointed for the work. Boris Johnson has ordered

a six-month enquiry into London s night-time economy,

following the closure of a series The night-time commission will make

recommendations on how to protect and manage the night-time

economy this autumn, shortly after the planned

launch of the 24-hour Makers of soft drinks will be taxed

more under new rules The tax could raise ?500 million

a year to help fund sports Some campaigners have welcomed

the initiative to tackle the health Inner-city London has high rates

of childhood obesity. In Hackney, more than a third

of ten to 11-year-olds Diane, will it work, this sugar tax,

in actually reducing the volume of sugar that is consumed by people?

Yes, it has worked in France, it has worked in Mexico. For children in

their mid to late teens, fairly a third of the sugar they consume

comes from fizzy drinks, so having a tax on those kind of drinks will

bring down consumption and be far better for them. The critics say it

is regressive and will disproportionately hit the poorest.

What do you say to them? Identifying, in a sense, that is

what we are trying to achieve by bringing forward this tax, as Diane

has just said. It is about changing behaviour but at the same time,

frankly, it is about raising money from the people who are making

profit out of selling these drinks so that we can put that went into

school sports, which is a really constructive way of improving health

in the first place. The evidence, though, is mixed. It did work in

Mexico, it reduce consumption by around 6%, but after 18 months that

consumption went back up again, that will be the fear. On it and it is

not complete answer, but you cannot have children consuming gallons of

fizzy drinks. It is not just puppy fat, they don't have diabetes, high

BP. If this will help in anyway it is worth it. If you look at, for

example, higher alcohol duty rates on beers that were really much more

alcoholic than average, what you saw was the manufacturers react to that,

and we saw alcohol levels in those highest alcoholic beers come down. I

think what we will see is a combination firstly of people

understanding just how much sugar is in the strings, but secondly then

manufacturers really being forced to step up to the plate and start doing

what they did on salt, steadily reducing the content within the

product itself. Although the fears they will pass that on to the

computers who will have to pay the extra cash. -- onto the consumers

will stop My thanks to Diane Abbott

and to Justine Greening. can David Cameron bring his

government back together after Iain Duncan Smith's resignation? What

happens to George Osborne's budget plans and what will the impact of

all this be on the EU referendum campaign?

So where does it go from here? I would suggest it gets worse for the

Tories long before it gets better. Yes, I think one thing David Cameron

and George Osborne might want to think carefully about is how they

manage Iain Duncan Smith, and the pretty hostile briefing against him

is only going to increase his ire. They should not forget that he has

quite an important weapon, the private conversation with primers

to's office in recent weeks, which show that the Prime Minister wanted

to much, much further than Iain Duncan Smith was willing to go. When

they say these were your ideas, why is it a problem, Iain Duncan Smith's

argument is yes, these were my ideas, but they were part of a

long-term sustainable plan. They were not about giving you, George

Osborne, money to cut taxes for the wealthy, which is what he did in

capital gains tax. So I think they probably need to handle Iain Duncan

Smith with care because he could be dangerous for them if he really is

on the loose. Is clear It already for every person

in Downing Street is briefing to have a go at Iain Duncan Smith,

there is someone ready to have a go at Mr Cameron and the government? I

cannot remember a time since David Cameron became leader of the

Conservative Party that discipline has broken down as it has in the

last 48 hours. It is hard to see how he brings discipline back in before

the referendum. His powers of patronage is limited, he doesn't

want a big reshuffle before the referendum, he wants to wait. There

is a feeling of open season. Is he on his way out? It is not in

Brexit's interest to whip this up. People will worry what a big leap it

is into the unknown if we leave If they think we are voting for a total

change of government and Prime Minister, it puts the stakes of even

higher. We might see believe campaign's dumping this down a

little bit. The Chancellor, now among the walking wounded, has a

budget to get to the House of Commons which deals through money

matters. He needs a vote to cut the capital gains tax, cut corporation

tax, raise the threshold for the 40% taxpayers. There is a danger with

rebellion in the air and the Tory back benches rebel against one

thing, as they do on disability they could rebel on other things? I

think he has two problems, the immediate is the legislated

challenge of getting the CGT cut and the threshold raised and everything

else through Parliament in the coming weeks and months. Then he has

to find the money he has just lost by reversing on the disability

benefit cut. He has already lost money from reversing the tax credit

policy. Which is why he broke his welfare cap. Exactly. Even if he

gets through this immediate challenge of getting the budget

through Parliament, his central purpose as a politician is to close

the deficit. He has made it harder for himself by reversing on some of

these contentious measures. It's not as if the problem ends in a few

weeks' time. Isn't it made worse by the fact this is taking place in the

midst of the EU referendum campaign, which had already divided

conservatives. It like pouring petrol on the flames? It is hard to

see anything other than another four months of mayhem. We don't know what

the results of the referendum will be. Probably a good deal of mayhem

after that. It is interesting how quiet Boris Johnson has been. I

understand he is away skiing, but we haven't heard from friends of his.

Maybe the lines are bad to the Alps. It shows you how serious his team

are, they are being smart and will not wade in. This has been a good

weekend for Brexit, because their most high profile member of the

Cabinet has resigned and appears to be a bit bullied, possibly by George

Osborne. He speaks from the heart of this because he had this visit to

Glasgow and got onto this issue In that sense it is a good weekend the

Brexit. But the problem for them, you need to be talking about the

vision for the future of Britain. This is quite Westminster, inside.

Brexit need to counter the main argument that they are the biggest

risk. While there may be sympathy for Iain Duncan Smith, it is not

getting on their argument. The two leading spokesman for the remain

campaign on the conservative side the Prime Minister and the

Chancellor. The Minister has a civil war on his hands and has to be

careful he doesn't make it worse by some of the briefing Downing Street

is behind. The second most important man is among the walking wounded.

Why will people listen to him over the referendum. That is why it has

been a good weekend for the Brexit. But the most political force in this

country will make a big picture decision based on the big picture

arguments of what is the safest option and what is the riskiest

option. I am not sure this great excitement and eruptions in the

Westminster village, I am not sure whether they massively register with

the British people if they make a big decision are big issues. There

is concern over the Conservative Party and their brands. They work so

hard to detoxify themselves in the run-up to the last elections. It

wasn't convincing, they were in coalition and now they have the

smallest of majorities. Now it looks like they are the nasty party. At a

time when the home strategy was to move to the centre ground? It hasn't

worked. If I were a conservative strategist, I would concerned about

the catastrophic damage to the party's brand. The Prime Minister

keeps on making speeches, normally on Monday about the poor, about

racial discrimination, about equality. All designed to position

the Tories in the centre, even the centre-left ground, because they

think Labour has left that. But they can come up with the tax credit

fiasco and the disability fiasco. Who is running the show? It is hard

to close the deficit once you have ring fence the NHS and everything

else. But they make it difficult and provocative when they juxstapose a

cut in tax credits, with raising the threshold of in terrorist --

inheritance tax last year. Capital gains tax this year. They have had

to do it because it was in the manifesto, but it didn't have to be

in the manifesto and it is that juxtaposition rather than the cost

of welfare that appeared to be so incendiary. You say it has been a

good weekend the Brexit, and the domestic back drop will exacerbate

tensions between the remain and leave. But there is an international

guy mentioned to this. The EU in Turkey have come to an agreement, I

think it starts tonight. And here is a guess, I'd bet it starts to

unravel within 24 hours? It is the sort of thing that looks good on

paper. Refugees who come over arson back to Turkey and Syrian refugees

are sent to Europe. Looks great on paper. These are people who have

risked their lives, seen people drowned in the Aegean Sea. Lost

family members. They make it to Greece and you are going to say to

them, get back. And they say, fine, I will do that. It will be difficult

to do. UN agencies are saying they are not sure if it is legal. You

cannot treat a group of migrants as a group under the Geneva Convention,

they have to be treated as individuals. But this treats them as

a group. If you see more unpleasant scenes out of Greece, more of a

sense the European Union just hasn't tackled this problem, that all adds

to the leave campaign? Yes, it is a real source of alarm. The debate

about Turkey and the possible prospect of Turkey, in the

long-term, becoming part of the EU, is extremely toxic. The outer

campaign will be seeking to exploit every inch of that debate. It has

been a horrible week for the remain campaign, politically and

strategically. Ultimately, the decision by swing voters, people by

definition have no principled view on the subject, will be based on big

picture variables and factors. Would you rather have the Prime Minister,

still a credible, by all accounts a reasonably popular Prime Minister,

on your side? You would. It is a big asset than Iain Duncan Smith, Boris

Johnson Michael Gove. One of the big elements of the bigger picture is

the prospect of Turkey becoming a member of the European Union. I am

not sure I will be alive at the time Turkey joins the European Union

That means the EU is basically lying to Turkey? The implicit thing about

the deal they have had is you make progress towards membership. I am

making progress towards becoming a millionaire, it is not going to

happen. I was looking to you for alone! I was in Luxembourg ten years

ago when those accession negotiations began. The Foreign

Minister of Turkey was made to wait in Ankara. He eventually flew

through the night when Europe eventually said yes, we will start

it. There has to be a referendum in France to allow them to join. The

French will not vote in favour of Turkey joining. I agree it is not

going to happen but it is a sleight of hand to imply to the Turks to get

them to deal with the migrant crisis. They use it to get the money

and sneak through various things. All Brexit has to do is create the

impression that it might happen sooner or later and bingo, you will

scare a lot of people. More worrying is how strategically depend on the

West is on Turkey. The Turkish government, is nothing like the

Turkish government than it was years ago. Which is why we are having to

shut up about domestic Turkish affairs because we are so reliant on

them. They are only closing newspapers. And locking people up.

We will leave it there. We won't be back next week, it is

Easter, but remember, if it is Sunday, it is the Sunday Politics.

Unless of course, it is Easter. ..and that's what

she felt with the blues. Most people can be oblivious

to what's going on around them