28/04/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Ukip leader Paul Nuttall officially launches his party's election

campaign as he says the Brexit battle is only half won.

But he refuses to say where he will stand in the forthcoming election.

A man carrying knives is arrested on terror charges

In separate incidents, police arrest six people

in anti-terror raids in London and Kent.

The Prime Minister accuses the EU of "lining up" to oppose the UK

in Brexit negotiations after German Chancellor Angela

Merkel says the UK had "illusions" about how tough the talks will be.

We assess the state of play ahead of a crucial EU summit this weekend.

And it's been a while since we last had a "dressed down"

So why will this year's Queen's Speech be a low key affair?

All that in the next hour, and with us for the duration,

columnist for The Times Jenni Russell, and the executive editor

We are hoping to be joined by him shortly after he has been held up.

Now, a man was arrested near the Houses of Parliament yesterday

following an intelligence-led operation by the police.

The Metropolitan Police said the 27-year-old man was detained

Three knives that he was carrying in a rucksack

The arrest was carried out just yards from last month's deadly

terror attack in Westminster in which five people died,

In a separate incident, police say they have foiled

an active terror plot after a woman was shot during a raid on a house

Let's talk now to our home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw.

Danny, take us through the operation last night. This operation that took

place in Wilson last night involved armed police, and we are told by

Scotland Yard armed police were involved because of the nature of

the intelligence they were acting on. They used CS gas to enter a

property believed to be a top floor flat in Willesden. During that raid,

shots were fired and a woman was injured in the police shooting. She

is in a serious but stable condition in hospital. Witnesses saying she

was led out and treated on the pavement in front of the property.

She appeared to have a bandage on her arm and also on her stomach,

though the extent of the injuries hasn't been confirmed. She is not

yet been arrested, she is under armed guard in hospital. Six other

people have been arrested, however, and three of them are women, two men

and a 16-year-old boy. One of the arrests took place in Kent. The

others were all in or near the property. Police have confirmed that

as a result of their actions, a plot believed to have been targeted at

the UK has been foiled. A plot foiled as a result of police actions

in Willesden last night. We were just showing footage taken by a

witness to that police action on a mobile phone to just explain to

viewers. Unrelated, there has been another arrest. A man who was armed

with three nights in Westminster. Tell us a bit about that. This was a

separate counterterrorism investigation. We understand this

individual had been on the police security service radar for some time

and then police received some information believed to be from

among the community raising concerns about this particular individual,

and as a result, he was stopped and searched in Westminster very near to

Parliament Square yesterday. As a result of that he's been arrested

under counterterrorism laws. At least three knives have been

recovered. They were seen on the pavement being forensically examined

yesterday. The incident has been under control. The 27-year-old man

is still in custody being questioned by police. So two incidents

unrelated, both intelligence-lead, and according to police, both have

been successfully contained. It comes weeks after the attack at the

Houses of Parliament in which several people, including PC Keith

Palmer, lost their lives. People might be concerned and asking

questions about an increase in what they see as terror-related incident

-- incidents and crimes. I think some of these things we've been

seeing have been going on every week for the past couple of years. Police

have been making arrests, carrying out operations. Some get more

publicity than others. The incident that took place at Westminster

yesterday was obviously of huge concern because of the proximity to

the Houses of Parliament, Downing Street, government officials,

ministers and so on. And because of the fact that it had echoes of the

tragic events of last month. But the fact is that the police have been

working round-the-clock for a number of years on counterterrorism

operations. Much of what they do, as the Prime Minister said yesterday,

we don't hear about and don't see them do it, but they are working

behind the scenes carrying out arrests. And it is possible that

some of the activity we are seeing might be some kind of response to

the events of last month. Perhaps the police are trying to nip things

in the bud a bit earlier because they don't want operations to

escalate. But it is clear that what police are doing is acting on

intelligence rather than in response to a direct threat on a particular

day. And in terms of that intelligence and responding to it,

people will be relieved of course if the police have managed to foil, if

that turns out to be the case, those plots you were talking about at the

beginning. This does of course provide some reassurance to the

public that the police are doing their work. The other thing that is

striking is that they do rely on information from members of the

community. It seems that that information was crucial in

yesterday's arrest in Westminster, it's been crucial in other

investigations as well. And police are urging anybody with suspicions

to come forward. They are emphasising this is not something

they can do by themselves. They are the ones who carry out the arrests

and investigations but they rely on intelligence and information from

members of the public, concerned family, friends, other members of

the community, to call in or message them in some way. Thank you very

much. Are you reassured rather than concerned, Jenni Russell? I don't

know that I've ever reassured by the fact that you have meant walking

around carrying three knives, let alone one! I am reassured, actually.

I'm rather impressed that the police seem to have enough lines into

communities and enough trust that people are letting them know ahead

of time. There's so much police work we never know anything about but it

seems impressive they could stop somebody walking down Whitehall and

they had exactly the right person, and indeed he was carrying weapons

he intended to use. Let's leave there.

Yesterday we found out that the Queen will dress down

for the State Opening of Parliament after the general election.

So the question for today is when was the last time she did so?

You can wait till the end of the show to give us the answer. What we

really want to know is what dressed down means. Does it mean jeans and a

T-shirt? We will see! All will be revealed!

EU leaders are gathering in Brussels tomorrow for a summit to agree

the EU's negotiating strategy for the forthcoming Brexit talks.

Yesterday the Prime Minister accused the EU of "lining up" to oppose

She was responding to comments by the German Chancellor,

Angela Merkel, who said the UK had "illusions" about how

Let's have a listen to what they had to say:

TRANSLATION: To us, it may seem obvious the form

negotiations will take, but there are some in Britain

who still labour under quite some illusions.

We have seen that actually, there will be times when these

Yet our opponents are already trying to disrupt them,

at the same time as 27 other European countries

Let's talk now to our correspondent in Brussels.

Let's pick-up festival on Angela Merkel's comments. Has there been a

distinct shift by her or is it merely a change in tone? -- pick up

first of all. I don't think there's been a shift in tone. There's been a

very clear policy throughout. What they may have been is a shift to an

indication of frustration, irritation on the German side. The

messages they are hearing from the UK, for example. She talked about

illusions in the UK and she would specifically talking about the

statements by politicians in the UK that they could negotiate a deal

with almost the exact same benefits as we currently enjoy. Her point to

the German Parliament was that this simply won't be possible for a

country that leaves the EU, leaves the single market, leaves the

customs union. That leaves behind many of those benefits and would

have a different type of deal. She described it as a waste of time even

talking about that and I think the concern in the German side is that

they feel this could make negotiations very difficult and

start from a very difficult point when they really want to get down to

business. Is their consensus, then? Would you say the 27 member states

agree with both her sentiment and tone on that issue? Pretty much,

yes. Interestingly, what you hear, and I've been hearing this morning

in Brussels from EU sources, is that they say there was an astonishing

amount of consensus. They never actually thought they would be so

much consensus so quickly and so easily on the EU side. Now, they

have prepared their negotiating position, their guidelines, and

those will be agreed tomorrow by the 27 leaders who come here for a

summit in Brussels. They feel, I think, that they have very quickly

cohere around a united position and that there are very few if any

cracks in that. But they are concerned about how the negotiations

might go and aspects of that, particularly arguments over things

like the financial side, the liabilities the UK has incurred. But

they will stick to broadly the line that they want the divorce bill to

come first in their mind and then the rest of the negotiations will

follow through, even if there are broad outlines? I space people have

to remember Angela Merkel has a national audience to appeal to. She

has got to say it can't be attractive for a member state to

leave the EU in order to deter others. -- I suppose people have to

remember. I suppose that's true but I think it's far closer to the EU

position as we understand it, that this is simply the basis of their

position and that they will agree this and are very unlikely to shift

from it, and on the subject about the sequence, that was going to be

very clearly laid out as well. This is one of the very clear underlined

principles that the EU 27 have agreed and will lay out very

publicly tomorrow, which is that there must be an agreement on the

withdrawal, that means the amount that the UK has to pay to meet its

obligations already entered into in the EU, Citizens' writes, issues

around the border with Northern Ireland - all of those things there

must be progress on before any discussions about a future trade

deal, and there won't even be a possibility to enter those future

discussions till those first things are thank you.

How did you respond when you heard Angela Merkel, Jenni? One might have

said she was stating the obvious, or was this a warning shot to Britain

in any serious sense in the negotiations? I think she was

meaning what she has said and saying what she said. She has been utterly

consistent from the beginning and Britain refuses to take what the EU

says seriously. They have a fantasy that they will change their minds

and say after all, you can have everything you wanted and we aren't

serious about our position. But the EU has been consistent. You cannot

have the benefits of membership if you don't want to be a member. You

will have to renegotiate your relationship with us from outside

the EU. And we keep talking about this in puzzlement, as if we expect

these people whom we are defying to give us all the lollipops and

sweeties we wanted as if we were children! But it does give Theresa

May an opportunity to say, they are also lining up against me, that's

why I have to strengthen my hand, even if you believe what she has to

do is strengthen her hand against some of those in her own party who

want a clean Brexit. I think her rhetoric is extremely damaging. At

the moment she wants to say, look at me, standing alone against the

world, it's us against the world. But the EU are looking at this in

astonishment and saying, why are you making this so negative? And for

Theresa May not to recognise that she has two seduce people and

persuade people in the EU to give her as good a deal as possible,

because we have a very weak and negotiated -- negotiating hand. --

she has to seduce people. It matters much more to us that we can get

these negotiations done as smoothly and as quickly and effectively as

possible than it does to the rest of the EU. Except those very much in

favour of Brexit and a swifter Brexit would say the opposite. They

would say the EU needs us just as much in terms of future business, in

terms of the sale and trade of cars and other manufacturing exports, but

importantly, there will also be those who are in favour of a clean

and hard Brexit, which ever would you

want to use, who will agree with Angela Merkel, and that's why we

should leave as soon as possible, and we can come out without a deal

and go on to world organisation trade rules. But there will be 10%

tariffs on everything coming into the country and we will be paying

tariffs on anything we send to the EU. It will be immensely damaging

for the EU economy and our trade is much more important to us than to

the EU as a whole. Although it is a diminishing amount. But diminishing

very little compare to everything else. We are foolish to see we are

in a weak position and we need to be really -- realistic that the EU will

do exactly what it said right at the beginning. Thank you.

The SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, says the election in Scotland

is a straight fight between her party and the SNP.

Ms Sturgeon has been campaigning near Glasgow this morning,

prioritising public services and community investment.

And she said that only her party "can stand up to the Tories".

The Conservatives, for their part, are campaigning on a message

of opposing the SNP's bid for a second

Joining me now from Edinburgh is the SNP MP Tommy Sheppard.

Welcome back to the Daily Politics. Are you concerned about the latest

polls indicating you are on course to lose a number of seats to the

Tories? We know throughout Scotland this will be a battle between the

SNP and the Tories and we know in some seats it will be closer than

others. But we relish the prospect of taking the battle to them and

winning the general election in Scotland. How has this resurgence

for the Conservatives happened, bearing in mind you always like to

make the joke that there are more pandas in Scotland than Tory MPs,

how has this happened when the SNP have been in government? The SNP

have been in government for ten years in Scotland and we are more

popular than ten years ago. So why are the Tories winning more seats?

If they win more seats it will not be many. Tory support is back to the

level it was when Margaret Thatcher was in office. There always have

been Tories in Scotland, no one has said otherwise. What has changed is

the collapse of the Labour Party say we have a too was race between the

SNP standing up against a story to add to the rights of Scotland

against a Tory government which is trying to do otherwise. Using those

words which you have spoken there, what does it say if after the

anti-Tory rhetoric, and you talked about austerity, that actually, the

governing party, the Tories' presence in Scotland will grow. If

it grows, and I don't think it will, it will not be by very much.

Elections are won by the party who gets the most votes and the most

seats and I do not think it will be the Conservative Party and they are

very keen to try and talk up the narrative that by winning one or two

seats somehow they have won the election and I do not think that is

the case. People will want to judge the Tory rhetoric, they will want to

judge the government making low-paid women fill out a form to prove they

were raped, a party that is bringing in cuts to disabled people and is

now threatening the basic pension. These are the issues we will be

taken to the Tories. We will come back to that issue about what you

call the rate clause later in the discussion. You say it may only be a

few seats, predictions at the moment is that it is eight seats. You can

see why the Tories will flag it up as a massive victory. Do you think

the chickens are coming home to roost for the SNP after ten years in

power in Scotland? You lost your majority and the only way is down?

As dead think that is the case at all. I think the SNP is in a very

strong position going into this election and actually, the Tories

are in a week has issued which is masked by the fact the Labour Party

has collapsed, and many people who used to vote Labour are now

considering voting Conservative. I think when we expose the

Conservatives' record on what their intentions are, people will not want

to give this government any more of majority that they have already and

I am confident we can win the battle against them. The SNP is in a good

position going into this election. We have a proud record in Scotland

and a proud record at Westminster of standing up we will be demanding

that Theresa May does not stand in the way of the Scottish Parliament

and that she will respect the wishes of the people who live in Scotland.

That is what this election will be about. What level of result will it

take for saying this is another level of endorsement for holding a

second referendum? I am not going to speculate. There is only one vote

which matters and that is an GDA. Any predictions... You just

predicted the Tories will not get many seats! We will be fighting them

in every single seat, including the last remaining one they held at the

last election and we are confident we can beat the Tories throughout

Scotland. If the Unionist parties had more votes, with that muddy the

waters in calling for a second referendum? This is why the Tories

are banging on about independence. This election is not about a for

Scottish independence or even a mandate for a referendum on Scottish

independence. That mandate already exists. Is that because you are

worried about the result of this election? It is a matter of where

the appropriate decision should be taken. This should be a matter for

the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Parliament have voted that

in a couple of years' time people in Scotland should be allowed a choice

on that. The reason why they reached a decision was in large part because

of Theresa May's refusal to consider any differential relationship post

Brexit with Scotland and to respect Scottish opinion. Can I get you to

ask the question -- can I get you to answer the question, you have made

it clear you think you have a mandate and Nicola Sturgeon has said

that, for a second independence referendum, but if in this election

the Unionist parties together had more votes than the SNP, with that

make it more difficult? No, I didn't think so. The mandate would have

been daily did. The decision has been taken by the Scottish

Parliament and what this election is about in part is a test and a

judgment about whether Theresa May is right to -- to refuse to listen

to the Scottish people. It is also about the rape clause. Let's talk

about that. It was raised in the House of Commons at prime ministers

questions. This is about the government's plan to introduce a tax

cap on tax credits which would restrict benefits to the first two

children in any family, but an exemption exists for children born

as a result of rape, but women would have to provide evidence to the

state to qualify. What do you want to see happen? I want scrapped, to

be honest. This will slipped out last year by George Osborne in the

small print of his 2016 budget. The government has faced universal

opposition to this, including in the United Nations. It then had a

consultation just before Christmas and slipped the results out on the

day of Donald Trump is that in operation and has decided foolishly,

I think, to go ahead with this quite apparent policy. The idea of making

low-paid women prove that they were raped in order to get access to tax

credits I think will offend most right minded people's sensitivities

in a civilised society. I understand, but can I get your view

on the policy more broadly. Are you against a policy which limits

benefits, tax credits, to families of two children and not more? Yes, I

am. I do not think it is for the government to decide on a two child

policy for British families. I think tax credits should be done on the

basis of people's need and therefore you should be able to apply on the

size of your family. If somebody has three or four children they are

trying to bring up I think they are deserving of a larger tax credit

than somebody with one or two. That has

always been the case up until about a week ago. Stay with us. I am just

going to welcome James Delingpole from Breitbart. You have made it.

Isn't this a problem with unforeseen or not thought through consequences

of a benefit's policy? I think this is the kind of low politics that the

SNP specialises. It is white moderate people find something

slightly repellent about the SNP which is probably while we will be

glad they will lose a few seats in the next election. This is the

bedroom tax Redux, a perfectly sensible policy designed to reduce

the amount of benefits for women who want to use child-bearing as a

career option. That is sensible. What they have done is some

foolishly introduce this clause where the third child, if you want

claim benefits for a third child, if you have been raped. It has been

twisted by the SNP as if it is a bad thing. They bandy about the phrase

rape clause. Why is it being twisted? You say it is women who

wanted their children as a living, why is it that the government did

not think through properly, when they are trying to limit and reduce

benefits, which people may arguably say is not going to stop that much

more money being spent from the public purse, that they bring in

something people would find humiliating and degrading which is

to ask women to state in a paper how they have been raped? Because

whoever introduced that clause reckoned without the malign cunning

of the SNP. It was just designed to look after women who have been

raped. It was meant to be kind and instead it turned out to be abused.

Tommy Sheppard, malign cunning of the SNP, are you not just focusing

on this because you know it is emotive, rather than the policy

itself? No, and it is really quite shocking that they are defending

this policy and attacking people who criticise it. I should say the

criticism comes from right across the political spectrum, including

many Conservative people who are rightly, this does offend the

sensitivities. The idea of forcing low-paid hard-working women to fill

in an eight page form to prove they were raped in order to get access to

tax credits should have no place in a civilised society. If the

government had any sense they should scrap it in the manifest and make a

pledge to get rid of it and I think they would be applauded for that.

Jenni Russell, what do you think? Should the government dropped the

whole policy? I do not think there is an easy answer to this. It is a

difficult situation. Generally the idea that most people should only be

able to get tax credits the two children would probably be

electorally popular, because there are a small number of people who

have a large number of children. But it is wrong to say that these tax

credits are applied to people who are staying at home. Tax credits

under Universal Credit are there to support people in low-wage jobs, and

often people will end up having third children, not necessarily

intentionally, but by accident. The problem is, when you look at the

form itself, it is absolutely bleak and horrifying to see in heavy type,

if your child is born as a form of rape and coercive control. It also

means what would the child themselves understand about their

conception? Suppose you are a mother and you have three children and then

your children realise you're getting money in a household the two

children, you might not want any child to know they were born as a

result of such incident. There are so many unpleasant and ramifications

of this that I think the government may have to pull back because it is

so nasty. It was very uncomfortable for Theresa May when she was asked

about it at prime ministers and is? Yes. This is the kind of sensitive

what about this particular case, what about that? The reason this

clause was introduced was to protect women who have been raped, not to

stigmatise all women. If we are not going to enforce these rules then,

if the government doesn't have the courage to force them then maybe

they should not bother. Tommy Sheppard, just before we finish, one

of your MSPs said that victims had to describe their trauma to civil

servants. That is not the case. They will actually be speaking to a

health care professional if this policy is stuck to? Detailed form to

fill in. But we come back to the point that this is a disgraceful

policy the government should get rid of. Let's not pretend I am opposing

this because I am some sort of bleeding heart liberal. This is a

difference between people who believe indecency in our political

system and people who do not. Sheppard, thank you.

Now, one party which will be hoping to up its representation

at the State Opening of Parliament is Ukip.

Recently its one MP, Douglas Carswell, left the party

to sit as an independent, meaning that once again Ukip

has no representative in the House of Commons.

And it heads into this election campaign after

a turbulent few years - let's remind ourselves.

In 2014, Ukip won the European elections, and their momentum

continued during the last year of the coalition government,

with Conservative MPs Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless

But the 2015 election result was a mixed bag -

despite winning almost four million votes, the party

Nevertheless, the EU referendum was a high point for the party -

the fulfilment of its ultimate goal in politics.

Years of tension between senior figures at the top of the party,

and several Nigel Farage resignations, culminated in the

With a Conservative government committed to Brexit,

Ukip have been trying to carve out a role for themselves

Mr Nuttall has had a long-standing ambition to supplant

And earlier this week the party outlined an "integration agenda",

centred around a ban on full-face veils.

The party says it will decide at local level whether to stand

against long-standing Brexit backers like Kate Hoey.

But the polls haven't been particularly inspiring

for Mr Nuttall - this week the party has only breached 10%

Well, earlier today Paul Nuttall launched his party's campaign

Ukip goes into this snap election, determined to hold the Government's

We will act as the Government's backbone in these negotiations.

if voters elect a Ukip MP, they can be sure it will be a true Brexiteer,

someone who has campaigned all their political lives

for a free, democratic and independent Britain.

And we're joined now by Ukip's Deputy Leader, Peter Whittle.

Welcome back. Will you be standing in this election? I will. Where will

you stand? I'm not sure yet. Why is there so much prevarication? You are

not sure, the leader isn't sure... We have to think quite clearly about

where we stand and what we are going to do. Where you might have a chance

of actually winning. As you said, we got 4 million votes in the last

election. And now you have none. And we were a bit scatter-gun in our

approach. We have been organising on the ground much more in the past two

years, we have a greater sense of where we are strong and where we are

not. So we will be targeting much more in seats where we are strong.

So will you be standing in London, do you think? Probably not. Possibly

just outside. We are weighing things up and things will come clearer.

What about South Thanet? Where Nigel Farage stood? No, I don't think so.

We have to be absolutely right about where we are going to go. It seems a

bit strange. Hang on. You are standing but you don't know where.

Another senior figure isn't standing, Suzanne. Let me finish the

question! Nigel Farage isn't standing and we still don't know

from Paul Nuttall, who didn't seem to want to talk to journalists at

all, it seems like you are scared of the electorate because you just

don't have a chance of winning any seats. You are the last people we

are scared of! Bless you in the media, you try to put the agenda all

the time... That's our job. It will become quite clear. Paul is making

an announcement this weekend. Ukip have been at pains to present

themselves as more than a party of Brexit, that you have more to offer,

and yet you have agreed to stand aside in particular areas as long as

another party's candidate, possibly Tories, have a long-standing

Brexiteer. Doesn't that show you aren't anything more than Brexit,

really? Not at all. First of all, we're going to be standing all over

the country. When you talk about seats we are going to be standing

aside for, whether Tory or Labour, it comes down to a small amount, but

people have maybe been spending their whole lives doing what we've

been trying to do, in getting a strong, complete Brexit... But

beyond that you don't have much to offer because otherwise you would

stand on your own ticket? When we talked about immigration we were a

one-issue party. Things kicked off in the media one we talked about the

burqa and immigration. We are moving from a position of being purely

about Brexit to being a party, so what we said on Monday and what you

will see throughout the campaign is we are very strong on all aspects of

policy in Britain and not just about the EU, but of course this is, to an

extent, the Brexit election, so we have got -- we have to be absolutely

certain people will get what they voted for last year. Paul Nuttall

said 350 candidates have been elected and the total would be

dissimilar from the 620 15. Will it be closer to 350 or 600? Somewhere

in the middle. I'd say nearer to the 600 mark. Is that because you don't

have the resources or the money? Where will it come from? In terms of

our candidates, a lot of this is about the fact that Theresa May

cynically announced an election in six or seven weeks, or whatever,

quite cynically putting the fortunes of the Tory Party above anything

else, which is something we never do, by the way, in Ukip, so we've

had to do this quite quickly. But we're fine, we are secure

financially, and so we are going to go forward, and I think it will be

an exciting campaign. You talked about the domestic policies. Let's

talk about one of them, which is the ban on the burqa. Aaron Banks, who

was your main donor, said it was like going to war on the Muslim

religion. He's wrong. He was also wrong saying this is going to war...

This is an integration agenda, first of all. How is it about integration

if you are telling women what to wear? The fact is that the full face

covering, not the headscarf, is a barrier to integration, it's

something that has been banned in France, Belgium, and indeed the

biggest party in the European Parliament has just recommended

there should be an EU wide ban on it. There is a growing public unease

about this and the fact is that also it's a real living symbol of female

subjugation, and it's amazing that when it's put forward that this is

something which we are telling women what to wear, in many Middle Eastern

countries, there have been long-standing campaigns so women are

freed from this kind of restriction. In liberal democracies, is it put

forward in this way? It wasn't just errant banks. James Carver said he

strongly disagreed and said it was misguided. That nobody has the right

to dictate what people should wear, and I feel this policy undermines my

desire to represent all communities in the West Midlands, the area he

has represented. I don't agree with Jim overlap, and the fact is we are

not a whipped party. -- with Jim over that. The point is, the full

face burqa, and FGM, for that matter, they are not religious

practices, they are cultural ones. You say they are not about Muslims

but it is all about Muslims. No, FGM is not solely about... But the burqa

is? We are actually behind the curve compared to many countries on this.

Despite there has been internal opposition to this, Paul Nuttall

restated the commitment to the policy of the burqa ban, saying it

came from the grassroots. Do you think it is a popular policy among

Ukip supporters? Among those supporters or those they want to

attract? Both. The major problem is that it was about a cause and a

charismatic leader for Ukip previously, and they've lost the

cause and a charismatic leader. I don't agree with either of those

points. You've lost your charismatic leader, I'm afraid. If you're trying

to say Paul Nuttall is the same thing as Nigel Farage. They are

sunken in the polls and that's why they are desperately trying to

attract attention now. When you say the type of people we are going to

attract... They would be interested in voting for you. The ban on the

burqa is supported by voters of every single political party,

including the Lib Dems, by this country. That's how far this public

opinion has moved. What is the support for that? In Ukip it's huge.

In the Tory Party it's about 60 something, and then you come down in

the 40s to labour, and then much less in the Lib Dems. But the point

is it is majorities. Even the Lib Dems are now ahead of you, though.

It does look at -- look as though this is the election where Ukip

crashes and burns. The Lib Dems are on 10%! We've got six weeks to go.

I'm very touched by your face and list of all the things that happened

in the last year. What do you think the chances of success for Ukip,

though? Put the polls aside for once, but looking realistically,

Nigel Farage has gone, as we know Paul Nuttall is the new leader and

there has been a huge amount of turbulence. Brexit is happening, and

so what is the point? I would dearly love to see one or two Ukip MPs in

Parliament, partly to hold Theresa May's feature to the fire, as they

say, and partly to talk about issues Conservatives are not addressing at

the moment, like social cohesion. Nevertheless, I do regretfully say I

don't think Ukip are going to win many if any seats, and I think

that's rather sad. Unfortunately a function of fact that Theresa May

has nailed her cards to the mast, she is Brexit, it means Brexit, and

unfortunately Ukip is still associated, like it or not, with

leaving the EU, so the job is done. I don't agree at all. I think you

will be surprised. I think the big difference this time is that voters

share is one thing, and it probably won't be as high as it was last

time, and the fact is, there are no prizes for coming second with first

past the post, and we know that this time, so we've been much more

focused on a number of seats, so I think you will be surprised... What

level do you think you will get in number of seats? Is hard to say. We

have the one but I would certainly like us to see... We will be

targeting may be around six particular places and I think

therefore, you know... We also have a secondary layer. But the reality

is that the Ukip vote is going to the Tories. Do you accept that?

There is a shift, not only in personnel going to the Tories, but

also amongst voters, and that's the story of the first week of the

campaign, he says. The personnel who have gone... Basically, you know,

they joined us and piggybacked with us for a while and have gone back to

where they should always have been. They are not missed at all. What

will become clear to people, it's already becoming clear, is that for

example, on a big issue like migration, where people do trust and

believe we say what we mean, right, there is nothing coming from the

Government. That's become quite clear that immigration control and

levels have stayed the same for about ten years after we leave.

That's going to become clear over the next six weeks. Thank you.

Among those MPs choosing to stand down rather than seek re-election

According to his local executive council, the majority were set

Mr Mackintosh has been criticised for his role in a loan

to Northampton Town Football Club, which is now under

Mr Mackintosh has denied any wrongdoing.

Joining us now from Norwich is the investigations

editor for BBC East, Julian Sturdy.

Thank you for coming onto the programme. Who is David Mackintosh?

He's only been an MP for the last two years with a majority of 1700.

He was a prominent supporter of the homelessness reduction Bill and

championed the rights of grandparents. He had a question at

Prime Minister's Questions last week and was photographed with Jeremy

Hunt a couple of days ago, so last week he put out a video saying he

intends to stand again. What has changed his mind? Well, he has

jumped before he was pushed. He attended a deselection meeting and

the majority of that council were going to vote against him, they told

us, and at least 60 of those at the meeting were going to vote against

him. He could well have gone on the short list but even then his name

had become toxic in Northampton. One prominent Tory told me he would

resign if his name was on the ballot paper. Explain why he had become so

toxic and unpopular on the ballot paper. It goes back to his days of

the council leader in Northampton. In the run-up to the election, he

oversaw a ?10 million loan to the owners of Northampton football club.

It was to redevelop one of the stands. That ground to a halt, the

money ran out and now there is a police investigation into where the

money went. David Mackintosh says he has done nothing wrong and he will

co-operate with the police inquiry, but in order to find he had rushed

through the loan and his Cabinet were not given the full information

about the risks of that loan. What part has central office played in

his decision to quit? They saw off a rebellion by the party back in

December, when the party wanted to vote no confidence in him. We were

told at the time he would only be a one-time MP. He obviously didn't

expect the election to now, but I think in the last local elections on

the doorstep is named just wasn't getting popular vote. The brand was

being destroyed. It is the local party that has effectively forced

him to stand down and they now two weeks to find a replacement. We are

told this lunchtime there is a consideration that the former MP,

the long serving Brian Binley, might be asked to come back. Thank you.

Now, as well as electing local councillors in next

month's local elections, in six areas of England

they'll also be choosing new kinds of mayor -

metro mayors - that don't just represent one city,

He's a monkey and Hartlepool's football mascot.

Oh, and 15 years ago, people here voted for him

But ten years later, they dumped him.

They had a referendum and decided to get rid of the whole idea

But now people here in Hartlepool will soon be getting

one of the country's first regional mayors.

That's because Hartlepool, together with five other councils,

have joined forces to create the Tees Valley Combined Authority.

Well, the Government's told them that if they work together

and have an elected mayor to lead on things like housing

and transport, then they'll get more cash and power

But do people here want a regional mayor?

There's a lot of money that could be put to better uses, I think,

Are we doing it to satisfy Westminster?

We could maybe use the money in better ways.

I'll vote anything that'll be good for the town.

I think a lot of the decisions will go with Middlesbrough,

you know, and I think it'll affect Hartlepool in a negative

The idea is that these new metro mayors will bring growth to flagging

economies and get people more involved in local government.

But some academics argue there's a lot of hype and hope

Some of these mayors will be looking at areas about how we connect

transport to new housing and looking at jobs. That is not currently

happening in our cities. Some mayors preside over strongly

performing economies, other mayors preside over

weakly performing economies. It's very difficult

to establish a relationship. do high-profile mayors

contribute to increased Again, very little evidence

of that around the world. On the contrary, actually,

declining turnout seemed to be Despite the high-profile campaign

of H'Angus the Monkey in Hartlepool, only a third of the electorate

bothered to vote. If turnout is also low

for the metro mayor elections, it could leave whoever wins the job

facing questions And we're joined now

by Dr Jo Casebourne Will they prove any more popular

than the city mayors did? These ones are a very different thing. Unlike

being an air for a single local authority and not having very much

power which is why people voted not to have won previously, these people

will have more power and will be visible local leaders and will be

accountable and people will know who they are. Is there evidence that

people are willing for this to happen? When people are asked if

they want more local government they tend to say no. When people think

there is an additional layer of government being imposed on them,

they are not keen. The very few people in London would not want one

because they have seen positive changes in terms of their lives and

transport. You see the kind of sustainability of mayors over time

as they get more power and deliver more for local people. Do you think

people understand the concept of Metro mayors and do they understand

the costs? I think that has been less engagement with the public this

time than we might have hoped. The fact that we will have a general

election so soon after the mayoral elections means there will be less

turn out that we would have liked. But once people see things people

have been campaigning about, these are issues which really impact

people and impact people's lives. Do they convince you? Will be be a good

thing? I do not think they will but I am very enthusiastic about it. I

was in Birmingham on Wednesday night for the times where we were chairing

an event with the two main campaigners for now. One was the

previous chief executive of John Lewis. He says he has the power to

bring together 22 local councils and will bring transport, council and

investment and be a face for that area. It is a pretty depressed area.

Both he and the Labour candidate are making the very powerful case that

there needs to be something to galvanise that region because the

existing system has not worked. If they can go and be ambassadors and

spokesmen and coordinators and cheerleaders for the region, then

perhaps something will begin to happen. If we say the existing

system is fine, it is not working for the country outside London.

There will not be much of an infrastructure. It will be more

about the powers of bringing people together and working out strategies

which suit everybody and not one little council area. This will be

proper devolution, not just politicians and central government

saying it is great and then they will give the powers that people

need? I would love to know how they will have this new powerful sub

government. I am pleased we are attracting candidates of the calibre

of the guy from John Lewis. I was going to say the problem with local

government is the people they tend to attract an low grade. But if you

have real power then you will attract more people. They have money

which is given to them to spend locally. The infrastructure will not

be very expensive and that is what people worry about. Absolutely. We

will see they are big powerful political figures by the calibre of

the candidates. Have careered trajectories in politics are about

to get more interesting -- perhaps career trajectories are about get

more interesting. What areas will they have impact? Greater Manchester

has been doing this and they will be able to work with health and social

care locally to try and bring systems together. I think people

will be watching Greater Manchester to see what happens and no doubt

more powers will be devolved over time. Police and Crime Commissioners

have not turned out to be popular. In some cases they have been rolled

into the mayor's new powers so some will be taking over the role of

Police and Crime Commissioner. Dr Jo Casebourne, thank you.

Well, it's been a busy week on the campaign trail,

so here's Ellie with the definitive campaign week in 60 seconds.

In this first full week of campaigning, Jeremy Corbyn wasn't

turning his back on core voters, making promises on housing,

Tony Blair still thinks Labour's heading in the wrong direction

Meanwhile, she's been promising strong and stable leadership

over and over again, which may be why it was the longest

Boris Johnson went off that script and call Jeremy Corbyn a...

..Herbivore muddleheaded Mugwump, or whatever.

And no-one knew what he was talking about, not least his sister,

who announced she's joining the Lib Dems.

A boost for Tim Farron, who had to sack one of his candidates

And then he earned his own hashtag "smell my spaniel"

Can you smell my spaniel, maybe, maybe?

Elsewhere, the Ukip leader denied he thought he was a bit like Gandhi

and insisted beekeepers would be exempt from their proposed

ban on wearing of face coverings in public.

And in Scotland, the party leaders have agreed to a leadership debate,

and Nicola Sturgeon road a motorbike.

It's time to find out the answer to our quiz.

Yesterday we heard that the Queen will dress down for the State

Opening of Parliament after the general election.

So the question for today is, when was the last time she did so?

So, James and Jenni, what's the correct answer?

Do you know, I think I was given the answer and I have forgotten it. You

cannot have forgotten it! Is it 1959? No, Jenni have another go. I'm

going to have a wild guess it was 1974 when they had two elections

given that they could not be bothered to put their grand things

on twice a year. That is correct. And we are joined by the BBC's royal

correspondent Peter Hunt. Before we get to the 1974 election

and the dressing down, what does it mean to dress down for the Queen?

When you get to the Royals this is all rather relative. I have heard on

social media there were suggestions of a regal onesie. We are moving

from the royal fling we are used to which is a full evening dress, the

long gloves and when she gets to the house of parliament the rapist put

on and the Imperial State Crown. Very heavy -- the MP real road --

the Imperial robe is that on. What we get is the day dress. A1 is the

is what people wear now. That may be your day dress. All these

suggestions are being taken on board at Buckingham Palace. Day dress plus

hat and handbag. That is important, the handbag. Why is it dressed down?

The timings they say. There is the Trooping the Colour, the Queen's

official birthday on the Saturday before, this happens on the Monday

and they do not have time to rehearse. But they have done it so

often. But it takes so much preparation. Take us back to the

last time there was a dressing down. This is where we put it in context.

You see this footage that she is in day dress as you both correctly

identified. She is being driven, she's going by motorcar and not the

carriage. You would normally see the State coach with horses, the

Household Cavalry, soldiers and a full military escort. All that went

in 1974 and that will go this year. That is because there is not enough

time to preparing to rehearse. Does it save money? You should have

someone from the government here and not me! Saving money, that is a

traditional lefty position. I was just wondering whether it was the

case in this time of austerity. And in 1974 was it also a snap election?

Yes, and when the election was called the Queen was in Australia.

She came back, dealt with it and then went back for her tour. How

much time does the Royal household need? Is their extensive rehearsal,

even if you have done it numerous times... The key thing to be

rehearsed is not necessarily a woman who is 91 and has done it since

1952, it is the Household Cavalry, the horses and carriages in place.

This has been rearranged for a Monday which means the order of the

Garter has gone. That has been cancelled? Andrew Neil of this

parish I have seen is a future member of the Garter. Does it matter

that she is dressing down? Will anybody mind? We would not even have

noticed. She looks like the Queen still in that footage. That is

footage from 1974. Do you think it matters, Jenni? I hate to challenge

James' preconceptions, but I happen to like the ritual. We have nothing

left in these Brexit days apart from to say look at our Queen and

ridiculous outfits. People like it. Thank you for coming in in your day

dress. There'll be a couple of hours of

just fantastic music, really, all the Ella classics, as well as

some very special guests,