George Osborne and Angela Eagle at PMQs - Politics live

Rolling coverage of all the day's political developments as they happen, including George Osborne and Angela Eagle at PMQs

• Gordon Brown's EU speech - Summary and analysis
• My snap PMQs verdict
• PMQs verdict
• PMQs - Verdict from the Twitter commentariat
• Lunchtime summary
• Afternoon summary

5.39pm BST

I supported Operation Black Vote, I want to engage people in all communities to get involved in our democracy but I'm afraid this poster is a really big mistake.

NEW #EUref poll from Survation / @IGcom: LEAVE 38% (NC*); REMAIN 44% (-1); Undecided 18% (+1) https://t.co/RuAxr60Qux

Absent any eruptions due to terrorism or the eurozone, I would expect, as in so many past referendums around the world, the status quo to gain towards the end.

So I think David Cameron is on course for a 55% to 60% remain vote. But I think 55% is the real winning post because if it's narrower than that then I think the consequences for British politics are pretty dire.

4.59pm BST

Nicola Sturgeon has set out her programme for government to the Scottish parliament this afternoon, focusing on education and attainment.

Promising to harness consensus, Sturgeon expanded her programme with ideas cherry-picked from the manifestos of every other party in the chamber bar the Conservatives: a dedicated minister for mental health, as per the Lib Dem manifesto, and consideration of a young carers' allowance as suggested by the Greens. One hopes that the Labour idea chosen related to expansion of the 'minor ailments service' at pharmacies is not an indication of how the first minister now views the party that once dominated Scottish politics.

4.47pm BST

Here's another picture from David Cameron's Japan trip.

4.40pm BST

Nigel Farage has been hit by leaves from a tree while sitting on the top of Ukip's open-top battlebus while campaigning today. This is from the Press Association's Dave Higgens.

The perils of open-top bus travel with @Nigel_Farage near Chapeltown, Sheffield. pic.twitter.com/RL1n7NjNSp

4.30pm BST

David Cameron has recorded a clip for broadcasters during his trip to Japan heaping praise on the Institute for Fiscal Studies. He said:

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is the gold standard is the gold standard in independent, impartial economic forecasting and commentary in our country. It is accepted by every political party.

They couldn't be clearer. Leaving the European Union would be bad for growth, bad for our economy, bad for jobs, and bad for families' finances.

Marr: I'm sorry to butt in, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies says it is arithmetically impossible for that to make up the cut in tax credits.

Cameron: That's not right. If you take a family where someone is on minimum wage, when you take into account all the things we are changing in tax, in the national living wage, and tax credits, that family will be better off, not least because you've got the national living wage, and we are also cutting tax so you can earn 11,000 before you start paying any tax at all.

3.56pm BST

Here are more pictures from the steel workers protest in London today.

3.50pm BST

An annual average of 16.3bn has flowed from the UK to the EU over the last five years, according to new figures, the Press Association reports.

Analysis from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggests that Britain made an average net contribution to the EU budget of 7.1bn per year between 2010-2014 while receiving an average of 5.6bn a year from the EU in credits for the public and private sectors for the same period.

Public sector funding included payments to farmers, while private money was targeted at areas such as funding research in universities.

3.28pm BST

Operation Black Vote, which campaigns for equality by encouraging black and minority ethnic people to get involved in politics, has produced a poster to encourage people to vote in the EU referendum.

https://t.co/ZPPPpRc4Nb 'A vote is vote' @saatchilondon @StrongerIn @LeaveEUOfficial #EUreferendum #brexit #bremain pic.twitter.com/79MjoXQvdm

The campaign shows that their vote carries as much weight as the other, frequently more vocal sides of the political spectrum.

Many people feel that this debate, whether it's the Remain or the Leave camps, has been characterised by anger, not much objective information and at times the demonisation of foreigners and in particular people of colour.

2.41pm BST

The IFS - for whom I used to work - is not a paid up propaganda arm of the EU. I hope that clears that up.

Over-simplified messaging, fear-mongering & controversialism are hard-minded campaigning. Accusing folk of corruption & ill intent isn't.

That kind of messaging I think could have made all the difference in this campaign ... I just see it as a campaigning failure to put forward simple messages that the public had an appetite to hear.

An exit from the EU, for example, would cause the UK to lose the preferential access to other markets covered by 36 trade agreements with 58 countries negotiated by the EU. As a result, to remain compliant with WTO rules the UK would have to impose higher "most favoured nation" tariffs on imports from those 58 countries while they would have to levy their own surcharges on British exports, Mr Azevido said.

A WTO analysis had calculated the cost of the additional tariffs on goods imports to British consumers at 9bn, while British merchandise exports would be subject to a further 5.5bn in tariffs at their destination.

2.07pm BST

At PMQs George Osborne welcomed the appointment of Lord Sugar as the government's new enterprise tsar. Labour have been pointing out that Sugar has not been so complimentary about Osborne in the past.

This is what Sugar told the Daily Mirror in 2012. At the time he was a Labour peer.

There is an underlying lack of confidence in the current chancellor.

I never rated him in the beginning. I don't know what his qualifications are to be chancellor, but we need someone in there who has got a handle on the economics. He's proving too indecisive.

1.42pm BST

And this is what political journalists and commentators are saying about PMQs on Twitter.

Generally they think Eagle did best, but views are mixed and there seems to be a consensus that Osborne is getting better.

PMQs was more fun than usual. Osborne's bombast cheered his backbenchers, but Eagle, sleeves rolled up, gave him a good biffing.

Eagle mocking Tory divisions in the manner many Labour MPs have craved. #PMQs

That was Osborne's best #PMQs performance to date.

Snap verdict on PMQs: Angela Eagle leaves Osborne searching for answershttps://t.co/PNrmYfgKTd pic.twitter.com/WSsuDeHIuU

#PMQs: @craigawoodhouse has Eagle the winner over Osborne in today's battle of the stand-inshttps://t.co/INcHoM9XCT pic.twitter.com/Pvo69ufZN9

I think Angela Eagle just suffered from the #ExpectationGame. Osborne got through that unscathed. #PMQs

Definitely Osborne's best #PMQs performance yet. To be fair, he hasn't set a high bar in the past https://t.co/yy8FM6s8Ne

This #PMQs is shaming the country. The noise and lack of respect is repulsive.

Angela Eagle enjoying #PMQs. Exploiting splits over #EURef by getting Osborne to admit he agrees with Len McCluskey not Tory backbenchers

Angela Eagle basked too much in the glory of her 1st #PMQs. No hard Qs for George Osborne today pic.twitter.com/Utzs8CUWsi

#PMQs At last Osbo gets some quite good jokes in but humiliating Six-Nil defeat for the Chancellor

Every time we see Angela Eagle take on Osborne at #PMQs it just shows how bad Corbyn is and how much better Cameron is than the Chancellor

After a strong start from Angela Eagle this has descended quickly into a stodgy midfield tussle #PMQs

Osborne's best outing subbing in for PM - neutralised Eagle's good material with attacks on Labour divides/ record

1.20pm BST

PMQs - Verdict: There is a theory that PMQs should be about the leader of the opposition holding the prime minister to account, by asking serious questions and by expecting him or her to reply to them. It is a proper description of one of the functions of parliament, and it helps to explain the approach taken to PMQs by Jeremy Corbyn. As regular readers will know, I personally sign up to the alternative PMQs thesis, which is that it is primarily a forum for asserting political authority, that getting answers doesn't always matter that much, and that a win can be achieved by the delivery of a rhetorical clobbering.

Angela Eagle takes this view too, and today she delivered a good example of how an opposition leader can use PMQs to taunt and ridicule the government. She focused on Google's tax deal, Tory splits over Europe, the Queens speech and the government's record generally. Little of this will be remembered next week, but it was strong, punchy stuff, and Labour MPs will have enjoyed it immensely. As I said earlier, she has given better performances from the despatch box. On paper, her best line was the one about how David Cameron and George Osborne "can't even get their own backbenchers to vote for nothing without a fight", but she did not deliver it well, and so you may not hear it on the TV news. But even Eagle at her second best is more cheering for Labour than some of the performances they have been getting from Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs recently.

12.53pm BST

I missed Angus Robertson's question during the minute by minute summary, because I was writing the snap PMQs verdict, but here is it.

He asked about a Scottish deportation case, covered here by the National.

A young Australian boy whose first language is Gaelic faces being kicked out of the UK later this month along with his parents, after the Home Office rejected their case to stay. Seven-year-old Lachlan Brain and his parents Gregg and Kathryn have lived in Dingwall for more than four years and the youngster has even competed at the local Mod in Inverness.

But they face being forced out of the country after their application for an interim visa was dismissed.

As I understand it the family don't meet the immigration criteria, the Home Secretary says she's very happy to write to the right honourable gentleman about the details of this specific case.

The chancellor of the exchequer clearly knew nothing about it. The problem in the Highlands of Scotland is not immigration, it has been emigration ... Will the chancellor speak to the home secretary, speak to the prime minister, and get this sorted out?

The home secretary will write to the right honourable gentleman on the details of the case, but can I make a suggestion to the SNP - they now have very substantial tax and enterprise powers and if they want to attract people to the Highlands of Scotland, why don't they create an entrepreneurial Scotland that people want to move to from the rest of the UK where they can grow their business and have a successful life.

12.44pm BST

PMQs is meant to last half an hour. But this one dragged on until 12.42, which could be a record.

12.42pm BST

Labour's Alan Whitehead asks about a Southampton lettings agency banned for not giving tenants their deposits back. But this sector is largely unregulated, he says.

Osborne says the government wants to increase protections in this field.

12.41pm BST

Sir Edward Garnier says the Prison Reform Trust published a report saying too many children in care end up in the criminal justice system.

Osborne says Garnier speaks very powerfully. The Queen's speech addresses this, he says. And the government is reforming prisons.

12.40pm BST

Osborne says he agrees more needs to be done to help the social care sector. It needs to be more integrated with the NHS, he says.

12.40pm BST

Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP and chair of the public administration committee, says his committee has published legal advice from Speaker's counsel saying it will be illegal for the government to keep its pro-EU propaganda on websites during the referendum period.

Osborne says the government will abide by the law. He says he and Jenkin disagree. But they should focus on the substance of the debate, not on process.

12.38pm BST

Labour's Ruth Cadbury says the government's housing policies will not help the housing crisis in West London.

Osborne says there is a challenge of housing in London. He says he met with Sadiq Khan earlier this week, and they will see where they can agree on policies.

12.37pm BST

Responding to Sir Bill Cash, a Conservative, Osborne says he and Cash disagree on the EU. But they both agreed to support a manifesto saying the British people should decide.

12.36pm BST

Labour's Judith Cummins says more than 200,00 people signed a petition to keep recipes on the BBC website. Will the government allow a debate on charter renewal?

Osborne says the BBC is a great national broadcaster. But we do not want it to be a great national newspaper too, because we have a flourishing newspaper market and want to keep that. He says the BBC has got the balance right.

12.34pm BST

Anne Main, a Conservative, asks about the green belt.

Osborne says the government's plans for more homes will protect the green belt.

12.33pm BST

Labour's Julie Elliott asks Osborne why he has changed his views since 2003, when he said tuition fees were a tax on learning.

Osborne says in those days Labour were in favour of tuition fees. The difference is, the Tories learnt their lessons, and Labour did not. The number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds at university is higher than ever. He says Labour's plan to get rid of tuition fees is completely unaffordable.

12.31pm BST

The SNP's Patrick Grady asks what the difference is between an economic migrant and and ex-pat.

Osborne says Grady's question illustrates how the UK's special status in the European Union works.

12.30pm BST

Osborne confirms that Lord Sugar has become a government enterprise tsar. Sugar has told Labour it is fired, he says.

12.26pm BST

Snap PMQs verdict: A solid win for Angela Eagle. In truth, she has given much better performances at the despatch box, but she swung punches on a range of topics, and most of them landed with some force. It was a traditional approach to PMQs and it will do a lot for the morale of Labour MPs who have been given little to cheer by Jeremy Corbyn on Wednesday afternoons recently. Osborne, who was acceptable but no better, tried taunting Eagle over Trident, but she parried that very effectively with a 'bring it on' comment about the Trident vote. And significantly Eagle attacked the Tories over their EU referendum divisions, which Corbyn has barely mentioned from the despatch box. She illustrated quite how much potential there is for party-political point-scoring in the EU debate, although quite what this does for cross-party Remain campaign solidarity is another matter.

12.19pm BST

Eagle says given that Duncan Smith calls Osborne disingenuous, and Boris Johnson calls him demented, she would not talk about Tory splits if she were Osborne. She says Michael Portillo recently said the Tories did not know what they wanted to do in power. Even this nothing Queen's speech has caused a revolt, and caused the first defeat on the government's legislative programme for 92 years. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know: the prime minister and the chancellor cannot even get their backbenchers to vote for nothing without a fight.

Osborne says the government has delivered a record number of jobs, and introduced the national minimum wage. She says Labour used to back nuclear weapons. Now they want to get rid of them. The prawn cocktail offensive has become just offensive.

12.13pm BST

Eagle says the exchequer secretary deals with taxes on vices, not Google. She did her job on that. France is demanding ten times more from Google than Osborne did. Labour wants the UK to stay in the EU, she says. But the Tories are split right down the middle. And it is descending into "vicious acrimony". Last week Priti Patel called for Brexit so there could be a bonfire of workers' rights. Does Osborne agree with Patel, or with Len McCluskey, who backs the EU for the sake of workers' rights.

Osborne says Eagle has confirmed she did not raise Google's taxes when she was in the Treasury. Let's have a consensus on Trident, and on having a credible economic policy. He says he backs staying in the EU.

12.08pm BST

Eagle says Labour looks forward to the Trident vote, and Osborne should get on with it.

Given the French tax raid on Google, does Osborne regret calling his cosy tax deal with Google "good news".

12.05pm BST

Maria Caulfield, a Conservative, says security must be a priority. So what is the government doing on Trident?

Osborne says he agrees. For 70 years an independent nuclear deterrent has provided security. There will be a vote in the Commons. He challenges Angela Eagle to say Labour will back Trident renewal.

12.04pm BST

George Osborne says he is standing in for Cameron.

12.03pm BST

They've met at #PMQs before - and @angelaeagle wiped the floor with him. Here's a clip... https://t.co/8Z6hBZNPeK pic.twitter.com/j6iFvm4JRB

12.02pm BST

Tory Whip Gavin Barwell in conversation with the SNP's Westminster leader Angus Robertson just before PMQs starts

11.58am BST

#PMQs coming up - @angelaeagle up against @George_Osborne - at least 4 Tory outers on order paper: pic.twitter.com/o7W0fmC2wr

11.56am BST

PMQs will start soon.

It's George Osborne v Angela Eagle, because David Cameron is in Japan.

11.52am BST

In his speech on the EU this morning Dan Jarvis, the Labour MP, said that staying in the EU would help to keep Britain secure. Here's an extract.

It has been 64 days since the attack on the people of Brussels and 59 days since the Easter bombing in Lahore. Much has been written about what the attacks teach us about terrorism and geopolitics. The truth however is these attacks told us only what we already knew. Things we have known since 2001 and have been repeatedly and tragically reminded. From Madrid to Mumbai; from Jakarta to Jos and from Peshawar to Paris we have seen that these networks pay no attention to lines on a map.

Terrorist networks have become more sophisticated, combining with criminal networks. We have seen this most prominently with Daesh - where defeating their financial networks has often become as important as traditional methods of defeating terrorist networks. In how we approach these networks, the US General Stanley McChrystal has put it best, saying: "It takes a network to defeat a network."

11.47am BST

And while we're on the subject of David Cameron, the Daily Mirror is asking its readers to try to help it send him to prison. Or at least some Tory MPs to prison. It has announced a People's Electoral Commission and is inviting readers to go through Tory MPs' election expenses returns to identify possible fraud. You can read more here.

Channel 4 News had a good line on the election expenses story last night. It said the Conservative party sent lawyers to court to oppose a bid by Kent police to extend the time limit for its investigation into allegations the Tories broke election spending rules. Without an extension, the time limit in the Representation of the People Act could prevent a prosecution.

11.31am BST

David Cameron has arrived in Japan for the G7 summit.

11.16am BST

Here's Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, on the IFS report.

Another doomsday report today from an organisation receiving EU funding, this time the IFS.

11.05am BST

Gordon Brown, the former Labour prime minister, has just published a book on the EU referendum, Britain: Leading, not Leaving, and the cover includes a line saying his speeches in the Scottish referendum "are widely credited for helping Scotland remain in the United Kingdom".

The speech everyone remembers is the outstanding one he gave the day before the referendum vote. It is probably a myth to think that that speech alone swayed a lot of votes, but it was a refined version of a stump speech he had been giving for several weeks, which probably did influence many voters, and what is certainly true is that Brown played a vital role articulating a vision of a future for Scotland in the UK, culminating in "The Vow". For a few weeks in the autumn of 2014 he was back shaping events, acting like a shadow prime minister.

In a few days' time the focus of the referendum will shift from the current battle for the hearts and minds of Britain's 11m Conservatives to an even larger group - Britain's 14m voters, 9m of them Labour, who are not right-of centre - and to the danger that many of them will not vote Remain but simply remain at home.

While more instinctively pro-European, this group's concerns are not the same as the Conservatives. They do not think the status quo is to their benefit, they want to know how their lives can improve and they need to hear a positive message of how Europe can deliver for them in the future.

Economies of scale, lower production, transaction and distribution costs and easier access to finance could deliver - according to one estimate - 500,000 new jobs in the next decade and will also create the wealth that allows us to invest in our public services, especially the NHS.

Britain benefits from greater competition in energy markets, enhanced interconnections between states and, most of all, as the evolving North Sea offshore grid shows, from new ways of using - and not wasting - our massive but intermittent wind and wave power. The bigger the cross-European pooling of energy, the greater efficiency we achieve in the use of wind and wave.

We should also champion the creation of a migration challenges and support fund - a European solidarity fund - that helps communities in which health care, schools and public services are under pressure because of sharp population changes. We know that one of the greatest grievances of the public is that inadequate provision is being made where the NHS is under severe strain and where school enrolments are not met by enhanced teacher provision. A dedicated EU fund would help address this issue.

Finally, Britain should propose stronger measures at the European level to protect workers hit by zero hours and casual contracts and in particular British workers undercut by exploitative employers in other European countries or operating underground in the UK. Action by the European Union can prevent countries from engaging in a dog-eat-dog race to the bottom, under which the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad by the worst.

10.27am BST

Vote Leave issued more information about why it thinks the IFS is biased in a detailed rebuttal press notice it released last night. Here's an extract

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has received a7.4m from the EU since 2007. It is not an independent organisation, but a paid-up propaganda arm of the European commission ...

In addition, the IFS states that in 2014, 11% of its research funding came from the EU. It states that it has received 4,118,651 from the European Research Council in total and received 792,931 in 2014 alone. This means that if we Vote Leave, the IFS will face a financial deficit of 792,931, or 11% of its income.

The rebate is a discretionary grant which the European commission can pay to the UK if it so chooses. There is no obligation on the commission to pay it. As the chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, has said: 'It is not a unilateral decision of the British Treasury or the British government to just say, "This is our rebate. We are entitled to it. Pay up". The way this works and has always worked is there is a negotiation with the European commission.'

10.10am BST

The Department for Business has announced that it has appointed Lord Sugar, the Apprentice star and former Labour peer, as an enterprise tsar. In its news release the department said:

Lord Sugar has been appointed enterprise tsar as part of the government's drive to get more young people to consider starting their own business or undertaking an apprenticeship.

As well as championing enterprise and apprenticeships among young people, he will encourage businesses to take on apprentices themselves.

10.00am BST

ITV's Robert Peston has posted his verdict on the IFS report on his Facebook page. Here's an excerpt.

Possibly the most damaging statement for the campaign to leave the EU in today's report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies - on the implications of Brexit for government finances - is one that will attract little attention.

It is this: "there is an overwhelming consensus among those who have made estimates of the consequences of Brexit for national income that it would reduce national income in both the short run and long run".

9.54am BST

The Treasury has (unsurprisingly) backed the IFS report. This morning a Treasury spokesman said:

It's a significant addition to the consensus of credible opinion that Britain's economic security is at risk from a vote to leave the EU, and supports the conclusions of the Treasury's own analysis which shows a vote to leave would lead to a significant hit to public sector borrowing, of up to 40bn by 2019/20.

Far from having more to spend on schools, hospitals and other vital public services, we'd have far less. This is further proof that we are stronger, safer and better off inside a reformed EU.

9.52am BST

Alistair Darling, the former Labour chancellor, was also on the Today programme this morning. He said he would like to see Jeremy Corbyn getting more involved in the Remain campaign. Darling said:

The leader of any main political party in this country, and the leader of the opposition, has a big role to play and I hope that [Corbyn] does more. However, this is a broad-based campaign of all parties and people of no parties.

9.48am BST

Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, was on the Today programme this morning talking about its Brexit report. Here are the main points from the interview.

It's true we get about 10% of our income from something called the European Research Council, which is an independent, arms-length body which funds world class academic research in countries as diverse as Norway and Israel which are well outside of the European Union. That funds some of the more academic end of the research that we do, and certainly doesn't impact on this kind of work. But more importantly, for the last 30 years the IFS has really built its reputation on the independence and integrity of our work. Actually there is no sum of money from anywhere in the world which would influence what we said, because if it did then the point of the IFS and the reasons that you are referring to earlier, that we are listened to after budgets and so on, would simply be lost.

The 350m a week is our full gross contribution to the EU before we get our rebate back, the rebate that Mrs Thatcher famously negotiated back in the 1980s, and before we take account of the money that we get back to pay to our farmers and so on. To have that 350m after we left the EU you would have to assume something rather bizarre, which is that we'd left, we stopped paying contributions and our current partners nevertheless continued to pay us a rebate on contributions that we weren't making. That's where you get 350m from. And then in addition, there's another 100m or so, a bit less than that, which we get back to pay to farmers and so on which we could decide to spend on something entirely different but probably most of that, or certainly some of it, would continue to go in the same direction.

You're absolutely right - 8bn [the net UK contribution to the EU] is more than worth having, it's about 1% of everything that we spend at the moment. The problem is that what really matters for the public finances going forward is the size of the economy. Now if the economy were to be about half a percent smaller than it otherwise would have been going forward then you lose that 8bn, because you get less in the way of tax revenues in.

9.18am BST

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has this morning joined the many respected economic bodies saying that Brexit would produce a short-term hit to the economy. It has set out its views in an 80-page report, Brexit and the UK's Public Finances (pdf).

Here is an extract from the news release.

In the short run, our estimates therefore suggest that the overall effect of Brexit would be to damage the public finances. On the basis of estimates by NIESR, the effect could be between 20 billion and 40 billion in 2019-20, more than enough to wipe out the planned surplus. In the long run, lower GDP would likely mean lower cash levels of public spending.

To put this in context, dealing with the public finance effect would require at least an additional one or two years of 'austerity' - spending cuts or tax rises - at the same rate as we have experienced recently to get the public finances back to balance (should that remain the government's priority). Following this path would also mean government debt remaining higher than otherwise, and additional debt interest payments.

It's no wonder people are being turned off this debate given the continuous campaign to do down the British economy from EU-funded organisations. So many of these studies are based on entirely negative assumptions about our economy and the future decisions a UK Government outside the EU would make, but ignore the pressing need of EU countries to continue trading with the UK. They also ignore the very real risk of what will happen if we vote 'In'; more money and power to a Brussels interested only in propping up an ailing eurozone.

I think the IFS are part of this cosy establishment which desperately wants to keep us in the European Union. And they have on this brochure they have issued today, the 'UK in a Changing Europe' logo. They say it's paid for by the economic and social research council and they clearly buy into this general view that there would be unspecified negatives on our trade were we to leave the European Union.

Related: IFS warns Brexit would extend austerity for two more years