John McDonnell and Damian Green The Andrew Marr Show

The narrative in this election is that Theresa May is hyper cautious

and shies away from any risks so it's odd then that the Conservative

manifesto contains so much challenging news Brora one group

above all others that actually boats, pensioners. Damian Green

joins me now, thank you for coming in, do you recognise this document?

I do. Who produced it? The Conservative Party. And what does it

contain? A forensic dissection of the way Labour approaches any

problem to say there is a magic money tree, we don't need to the

former change anything, we just need to take money off businesses and

that solves a problem. You remember the 1970s... You agree this is

detailed costing? It exposes the Labour manifesto as a Charente. Here

is another document, why does this not a detailed costing? We produce

realistic policies to deal with the real problems of this country, some

of which raise money... Is that not double standards? Some of our

pledges are to spend less money or move money around so that it spent

in the right places, supporting people, not just saying the right

solution is taxing business. You were talking about this overexcited

weekend we're having at the moment, think this will focus peoples minds

on the fact that in less than a month Jeremy Corbyn could be leading

the Brexit negotiations and given Labour's complete lack of

credibility and nonsensical economic policy, nobody wants that. So you

mock them for the money tree but they have given us detailed accounts

of how much tax they would raise and you have not. Let's talk about the

black holes in your manifesto, you have said you will spend another ?8

billion on the National Health Service, where is that money coming

from? We produced a budget a few months ago so all the details

costings for Conservative policies are already there. This is extra

money for the NHS and I am asking where it comes from, extra taxes,

extra borrowing or cuts elsewhere so which is it? A lot of it is read

targeting money from within the system because we know we can do

things better. More support for mental health for instance. From

where? Biggest parts of the NHS and other parts of the public service,

one of the things you have been talking about... Michael Fallon last

week said there would be annexed to ?1 billion for the Armed Forces,

where does that money come from? Earlier, you are talking about, we

are going to target Winter fuel payments on those who really need

them and that money, the money we save from that can be targeted to

the health and social care system, that seems, to us, a sensible way of

dealing with one of the big issues facing the country. How much money

will you raise from cutting winter fuel payments? It depends where we

set the level, we said we will consult on that. It costs about 2

billion, so will it be most of that? We will see. Exactly why this is

uncosted. It is not. We are saying the money we save the money we save

on the winter fuel payments going to Bernie Ecclestone, Mick Jagger and

in the John McDonnell will be better spent elsewhere. A lot of people

watching this programme are not Mick Jagger, they are pensioners,

wondering at what level they are going to lose their winter fuel

payments. They are very concerned and you will not tell them. That is

why we have said we will consult so that everyone who is in genuine need

of the winter fuel payment. Get it but we think the money which is

currently being spent on people who need it less, many of whom have come

up and said to be over the years, should I be getting less? That money

is better spent in a social care system we all agree is one of the

great challenges facing our country. The difference between our document

and the Labour document is that we deal with the big challenges facing

this country, theirs is is just which -- just wish list. You have

the Labour Party costing everything and telling people what it might

cost and where it comes from, and your document, you are saying

nothing to pensioners who need to know before voting day if they are

going to lose their winter fuel payments. They will know that if

they are in genuine need of that payment they will still get it. What

does genuine need mean? That is what we will consult on after the

election because that is the sensible way to do it, that is the

way a grown-up government will operate. Here is our broad proposal,

a proposal which causes interest among commentators... It is not

commentators, it is pensioners watching this programme and

wondering if I vote Conservative on June eight does that mean on June 15

I lose my winter fuel payment yes or no and lots of them need to know

that. Those pensioners will know that we

have massively reduced pensioner poverty, one of the proudest things

successive Governments have done is that in the 70s or 80s, poverty was

40% of pensioners, we have now got that down to 14%. I'm proud we have

introduced the auto inroll system that means that seven million more

people are now saving for a pension so we'll be able to provide more

security and dignity in old age for more people through the generations.

We are looking ahead, not just at the election, we are thinking

long-term about the big challenges. We have somehow slipped sideways

away from Winter Fuel Payments. Can I put it to you that you start by

cutting this, you are going to take it away from virtually everybody and

the reason why is because you need that money and one David Cameron

said at the last time of the election, he said the Labour then

policy to take Winter Fuel Payments away from the top 5% by abolishing

these all together. He went on, once they have started chipping away,

believe me before long they'll start getting rid all together and we'll

be back where we are, the people who've worked hard all their lives

being written off and forgotten about? Ewe have identified social

care as a big issue. Old Old people care about that, so do younger

generations. We think restricting Winter Fuel Payments to those that

particularly need it. We as a country will decide what that is in

a proper consultation which is how Government should operate. You will

decide it, you won't tell people now? Releasing the money for use in

the social care system is absolutely a good way forward to start

improving our social care system which is vital for so many people.

At the same time as allowing them to keep their home, allowing them to

know they can pass on ?100,000 to their children. You have mentioned

social care a lot. Let us turn to that. Can you remind those watching

what the Conservative policy was in 2015 on social care, how was it

going to be paid for? The policy was broadly speaking to continue what's

happened before and the... There was a cap wasn't there? It was the

Dilnot proposals. The cap was? Well, the amount people could save was

?23,000. What was the cap? The cap was going to be about ?72,000 I

think. That was the policy. But the policy as it is I think needs to be

changed for two reasons. First of all, we know there are going to be

two million more over 75s in ten years' time which is great, we are

all living longer. You have broke than promise. Let's talk about the

2017 manifesto. We haven't broken that policy, we have devised a

better system. The idea that the only thing people could pass on was

?23,000 has now been replaced with the idea in the manifesto that

they'll be able to pass on ?100,000. That's four times as good. Except

the crucial difference is that the value of their house, if they're

being cared for at home, is now being taken into account as an

asset. Taking a constituency at random. Let's think of Ashford in

Kent, the average value of a house is ?240,000. If there is a widow, a

Mrs Smith living in an average house in Ashford under the new policy, how

much extra might she have to pay? She won't have to if she's living on

her own. She'll be able to stay in her house throughout her lifetime.

If she's not a widow... Her spouse will be able to stay in the house.

So she's got dementia, being looked after in her home in Ashford,

average priced home. How much extra will she have to pay under your

policy? She won't be paying anything. She will. Her estate will.

She won't be paying anything. Whoever she wants to leave money to.

I have the answer for you. She's going to pay an extra ?70,000, twice

what she would have been paying under the previous policy. Why

should she vote Conservative? I suspect that figure requires some

heroic assumptions. It doesn't. She should vote Conservative and her

children should because they will know that whatever level of care she

needs, so this removes that terrible decision of how long should you try

and keep someone at home or maybe put them into residential care which

is a real decision many families struggle with. That decision needn't

be influenced by financial considerations any more, everyone

can be confident that they'll be able to have... Money from else

negotiate due course? No, precisely, let them inherit ?100,000 as opposed

to the ?23,000 which is a much fairer system. Let's talk about

inheritance and take a different example. This time Twickenham. Vince

Cable for the Liberal Democrats is fighting you very, very hard there.

An average house there costs ?534,000. The chap has early

dementia, he is being cared for in his home. They have a little bit of

money but not much. They could lose everything. Their children and

grandchildren hoping to inherit his wealth won't be able to. Well, when

you say... I think it was going to be ?500,000, it's now ?100,000.

?100,000 is a reasonable inheritance to have and people who are lucky

enough to have had great rises in property value will still I think

decide that ?100,000 is a better way of doing it. This has got to be put

in context of funding the social care system. Of course, I understand

there is a problem. I'm asking about your answers. Our answers to that

problem mean more money goes into the social care system. Everyone

knows there'll be a decent inheritance for them. Nobody will

have to has their home during their lifetime or the lifetime of their

surviving spouse. This is a much fairer system and it's a much

more... Used to believe in inheritance. This is a vast secret

inheritance tax. No, it's not. It is. You are a member of the Bow

Group. You have written for them. You are a Bow Group guy? No, it's

gone off on a journey. Well the group says, this is the biggest

stealth tax in history. And the the Bow Group is wrong. We are saying

everyone can inherit ?100,000 regardless of the costs that the

state and therefore the taxpayer has paid to them. One of the biggish

yous that's facing this country is intergenerational fairness, so we

have... Yes, but the system is fair... Let me finish this. You have

got to be fair to people working now and paying taxes, that is the only

other way to pay for the care system. So this system we are

proposing is fair, both to pensioners and particularly that

minority of pensioners that may need long-term care but also to working

taxpayers. That's the question you want to ask John McDonnell, how can

he justify. ... Life is unfair generally, it's very unfair that

some people get dementia and some people don't. Under the original

Dilnot system, we pooled the risk in society after a certain threshold

and spread out the unfairness. If you are very unlucky and get a

terrible disease that means that you are being looked after at home,

maybe a stroke where you don't return to work or whatever, you are

being looked after at home, the rest of society will come in and help,

you don't have to pay again. Under the new proposals you are basically

on your own for most of it. Here is what Sir Andrew Dilnot himself said;

people will be left helpless, knowing that if they're unlucky

enough to suffer the need for care they'll be entirely on their own

until they're down to their last ?100,000 of all their wealth

including their house. He was right last time and he's right now. There

are two problems with what Andrew Dilnot proposed and it was a serious

set of proposals. One is that the social insurance he proposed as a

way of doing it, there's just no products there for its. That market

doesn't exist. The other, of course, is that his problem of, as it were,

setting a cap rather nan a floor, meant that the distribution of the

benefits became wildly uneven. You know, we are a party that Theresa

May wants a country that works for everyone. So it's got to work for

people, not just in Ashford though clearly I care about them and

Twickenham, but also in Hartlepool and in North Wales and in Scotland

and so on. So allowing everyone to know there is this flat figure of

?100,000 is fair to everyone. Briefly, in Ashford, Twickenham and

Scotland, people hate this policy and it makes them very, very nervous

indeed. Is there any chance at all you are going to look at it again?

No. What we have said in the manifesto incidentally just to put

that no in context, is that we have set out this policy which we are not

going to look at again. There'll be a green paper covering social care

and health coming out in the summer. Because we all know that the

long-term solution to the social care crisis is better integration of

the NHS and social care. That's the aim of our policy. This is the first

step along that road. I know you are coming back to it is can yous this

more, but for now, Damian Green, thank you very much. I'm joined by

the Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell. Mr McDonnell, welcome.

You'll have heard all of that. I'm going to ask you

straightforwardly... Before we start, can I pay tribute to Jo Cox's

husband, Brendan, I thought that was extremely moving and courageous as

well, what he's done. OK, thank you very much. Can I ask you, we were

talking about social care there, what is the Labour policy for

funding social care? Immediately we promised to put in ?8 billion over

if lifetime of Parliament to plug the gap the Conservatives have

created. Part of this crisis isn't just about an ageing population,

it's also about the ?4.6 billion that's been cut by the Conservatives

from social care since 2010. What we are suggesting is that we need to

get back to the Dilnot proposals. Including a cap? Yes. Let's be

clear, what he recommended was a cap which I agree because it gives

certainty to people about how much they'll pay. A cap of about how

much? If you remember, the recommendation that was coming out

of David Cameron's was about ?72,000. You would stick with that?

I think so, but the issue here is that it's the point you made about

the lottery and what condition you get. The reason some people call

this unfortunately a dementia tax is because you don't know what

condition you will suffer from. If it's a serious one like dementia,

and I've been through this in my family, know what it's like, what

happens is the burden falls upon you. Dilnot's proposals was also to

have a threshold as well so there would be enough for the children to

inherit if you had the assets. He said this basic principle, you pool

the risk and in that way people are not left on their own. I gave Damian

Green an example, I'mth I'll give you one as well. A couple living in

Burnley, a constituency marginal and being strongly fought over at the

moment. The average house there could be worth less than ?100,000.

Yes. For people who need social care at home in Burnley in the Labour

heartland seat, this is great news, it means they'll not have to pay a

penny, it gives them security? OK. Funnily enough my daughters live up

near Burnley and property prices are increasing there right the way

around the country. Glad to hear it for Burnley. We want to make sure

everybody is certain. That concept of we are all in this together is

the right one to apply to health as well as social care itself. In that

way, that's why... Let me just finish, Andrew. That's why we

supported Dilnot will yous be a cross-party approach, because we've

got to have something that's sustainable over generations. That's

why we have said to the Conservative Party, pull this now, go back to the

cross party approach that Sir Andrew Dilnot proposed. I just feel we have

all been let down as a result of what has come in this Tory

manifesto. Let me ask about your own manifesto. Sure. Some unanswered

questions from your own manifesto. Are you going to end the freeze on

welfare benefits? Rights, what we are doing is putting ?30 billion in

over the lifetime of the Parliament into welfare. We are reforming the

whole process, Universal Credits and the implication of that will be the

impact of that will be basically the freeze, the impact of these

proposals will make the freeze irrelevant because we'll reform the

whole process. You know what I've said about when the freeze was

introduced. I'm interested that when I say are you going to end the

freeze on benefits, you can't simply say "yes". In effect we'll be doing

as part of the overall reform package we are putting forward,

which includes the introduction of a real living wage, the reform of

Universal Credits and scrapping of the bedroom tax and sanctions et

cetera. What about child Tax Credits, are you going to restore

them? What we are doing is an overrecall comprehensive reform. You

should be able to say yes? I said you are going to swim through vomit

to vote against this. People know how strongly I feel on this, and

Jeremy Corbyn, that's why I used that expression. That is why in my

first budget the reforms we'll bring forward will make sure people are

not just protected but the system will be reformed to benefit them.

You are reasoningry about it, you could reverse it, the resolution

foundation says 78% of Conservative cuts undeper your proposals will not

be reversed. OK. I do not accept that. The proposals we'll be putting

forward on reform, as set out already, will ensure that in effect

we will be addressing this issue of how we reverse the benefit freeze

itself. I want to do it as part of an overall reform package and not

just pick off one by one. I feel so strongly on this. We will deliver

this in the first budget. It would cost you ?8 billion to do the things

that I've suggested. Socialism, as the man said, is the language of

priorities and your priorities, as a Government, seem to be directed more

towards middle class families because you found ?11 billion to

reverse university charges and that, as you know, mainly the university

fees mainly go to middle class families. Why can't you find that

for people on benefits. We are putting ?30 billion in in benefit

changes to make sure we tackle the real issues and reform the whole

system. That is going in. We have just seen for the first

time, the Tories increasing tuition fees, we have just seen states

children, the percentage of State children declining. It is become a

disincentive and that affects a spiralling working-class families.

Let's look at another aspect, higher taxes and higher debt. You have said

you will borrow roughly speaking ?25 billion a year for ten years, a huge

amount of money but you have also said you are going to nationalise

privatised industries without telling us how much that will cost

and yet at the end of this you will have less debt than before, do you

mean less debt in real terms? It is in relation to trend GDP. So it's a

smaller percent, not a small bag? Yes, that is how economists and the

market value the economy. It all depends, to get those numbers to

work, it all depends on a certain rate of growth of the economy, so

what is the rate of growth? Let me take you through it bit by bit,

starting off with the basic proposal, we publish this, no other

political party, certainly the Conservatives have not, they

published their manifesto, you picked Damian Green up this, other

organisations costed the additional funds needed for the Tory manifesto

is ?40 billion and I do not think there is a single ? in their

manifesto. Completely uncosted. He had a go at you and your having a go

at him fair enough, but let's go on. We published this with every policy

costed, the 25 billion, you know as well as I do the office budget

responsibility multiplier is one, so every pound you invest you get at

least a pound back, that will cover our borrowing. The 25 billion,

that's from the CBI saying we need ?509 of investment... It's the

figure of economic growth you require to fund your own plans. The

OBR analysis will cover the borrowing. Can you give us a number

for economic growth that you need? Its cost neutral. The growth

figure... It cannot be if the economy is not growing. What I am

seeing is the OBR are seeing clearly they are multiplying ratio is one.

So 1% growth? For every 1% investment you get 1% back and the

whole point is that I have put forward a programme which is cost

neutral. We are not getting anywhere. I am trying to say to

you... What is the cost of nationalising the industries? I am

seeing it as cost neutral because everything you put money and you get

money back, not me saying that, it is OBR. Nationalised industries we

will issue bonds for shares which means we get an asset in return and

that becomes cost neutral. In terms of costs involved, remember for

investment etc we will be getting the income from those nationalise

industries and that will cover the ability to reduced charges on the

customers but at the same time any costs incurred or investment we

need. This depends on economic growth and on the other side, apart

from the top 5% you are going for in terms of income tax there is a whole

raft of business taxes, higher corporation tax, the Robin Hood tax,

taxing companies who spend more than ?330,000 on salary. Those might make

sense individually but at a time in this country is on the edge of

leaving the EU and lots of companies and individuals are thinking should

I stay in Britain or go elsewhere, this could have the effect of

driving the same people... Quite the reverse. What we do in terms of our

spending policy is exactly what businesses are asking us for,

long-term, patient, stable investment. What we are doing is

giving them the opportunity to invest in this country alongside

government which is why we are setting up the national investment

bank. This is fully costed based on the principles actually what the

others... Quickly... Who told us now is the time to invest because

interest rates are virtually near zero, Philip Hammond just a couple

of months ago. Who knows if he will be there for a long time. You have

been discussing Damian Green through me, you'll be able to talk directly

to them in a second. Now let's look at what is coming up after this

programme. Join us from ten, we will be debating the question of

globalisation will make the world a better place, we have assembled

economists, seasoned commentators and campaigners against exploiting

the world tour to debate perhaps the biggest question facing all of us.

Very interesting, Damian Green and John McDonnell are back, John

mentioned Philip Hammond, a lot of talk you are being lined up for his

job after the election, have you had any conversations about this? No.

Philip Hammond is doing a great job and I'm sure he will continue to do

so after the election. Can I address something John said, he said we are

not going to borrow anything we will issue bonds, that is how governments

borrow money. And it is covered,... THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER You issue

bonds for shares, the income from assets covers the cost. It's been

done by government after government. But it is borrowing. The cost is

covered. Do not make this up! That covers, it is covered by the income

from those assets. If I take a mortgage on my house I borrow a huge

sum of money... These are operational companies that have

profits soar those profits will work to cover any cost about borrowing.

You are saying it is not borrowing but it is borrowing. I am interested

in what you think the economy needs to grow by because John McDonnell

was seeing your manifesto has ?40 billion of extra spending hidden

inside it which needs to come from somewhere, you have got huge

spending commitments which need to come from somewhere, this needs to

come from the economy growing... For every level of investment we put in

me get an exact return, so it balances out so they become the cost

neutral. We funded it, in their manifesto not a single ?. You have

not funded a single penny of the National Grid, the rail industry,

the water industry... This is fatuous economic talk. What happens

is you borrow the money from an asset and then that profitable asset

covers the cost. What you do do, in the water industry, ER associate

director of a company in the water industry and you made quite a profit

from that. ?18 million worth of profits shared out to shareholders,

we will take that money instead of using it for dividends for

shareholders we are going to use it to cover the cost. THEY TALK OVER

EACH OTHER We will use it to cut costs. You do not understand

capitalism. THEY TALK OVER EACH OTHER You certainly do. THEY TALK

OVER EACH OTHER Can I ask one more thing, one thing you have not done

is been very clear about what will happen to taxis if the Conservatives

are re-elected, is the truth is not that you'll had to put taxes up? Let

him answer. We have said we are not going to increase... We can find a

lot of things... How are you going to... We will not be clobbering

businesses... ?1000 on income tax. The three people still watching are

about to turn off, thank you. These days there's no shortage of

news from Westminster, on TV online and of course in daily papers. But a

few hundred years ago it could be dispatched to the tower for

reporting what was said in there.