08/05/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 08/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


After a strong showing in the local elections last week,


Theresa May is out on the general election campaign trail today


re-stating her commitment to the Tories' so far failed target


of reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands.


Jeremy Corbyn is focusing on health today, unveiling a fresh Labour


pledge for free parking at NHS hospitals in England,


paid for by increasing tax on private health insurance.


The BBC announces plans for a televised election debate


featuring seven parties on May 31st but it won't feature


We've got full details of the beeb's special election programming.


And we are taking the mood box on the road across the whole


of the UK for the general election campaign.


All that in the next hour and with us for the whole


of the programme today are the former Attorney General


Dominic Grieve and the Shadow Foreign Office Minister,


So lots to discuss, but before we get stuck


in to the British general election, let's take a look at the election


across the Channel and the victory of centrist


candidate Emmanuel Macron as the new President of France.


In the second round run-off between Mr Macron and Marine Le Pen,


the leader of the Front National, Mr Macron took two thirds


Speaking last night outside the Louvre in Paris,


Emanuel Macron said a new page was being turned in French history.


TRANSLATION: What we've done for so many months,


there is no comparison, there is no equivalent to that.


Everybody was saying to us it was impossible.


But they didn't know anything about France!


Victory speech therefore Emmanuel Macron. I mean, it was a pretty


impressive win for him, bearing in mind he hadn't been elected before.


But will it be good for Britain and Brexit, Dominic Grieve? I think on


the face of it it must be a good thing to have a moderate and


sensible President as the President of France. Is it going to give as


advantages in the Brexit negotiations? I rather doubt it.


France will clearly look to its long-term national advantage but


some of that national advantage is bound up with ours. It is in the


French interest to have good trading relations and a stable relationship


with the UK. I would be very surprised if Mr Macron did not


understand that and therefore I would expect and hope that he will


be reasonable in approaching the Brexit negotiations and will look at


those areas where French interest and our own in fact meet. And there


is a longer-term security issue which is of immense importance and


the French know this. The UK is their key security partner in the


European context. Although he says he wants to reform the lid to pay


agreement which we will come to in a moment. How will Jeremy Corbyn if he


is Prime Minister after the general election approached discussions? Or


how should he approached them? I really loved the motto, the bringing


together in the national interest of France. And that is the key thing of


the negotiations, searching out the key things we can do together and


resolving those, rather than megaphone diplomacy. Emmanuel Macron


has said in the past that Britain can expect no concessions in the


Brexit negotiations and we will see if he sticks to that and he has said


that he will hold a rigid line on the single market and access to the


European court. I think what get says in election campaigns and what


happens afterwards with a clear head is different. That is why Keir


Starmer will be so fantastic as our number one negotiator. We're looking


at pictures now off Emmanuel Macron, the President-elect, and Francois


Hollande, the outgoing President of France, meeting at the World War II


memorial. You mention security, Dominic Grieve. I mentioned the lE


-- Touquet agreement which allows passport checking to be done in


France. It was clear at the time that the agreement would be


beneficial to both parties, but following the arrival of so many


migrants in the Schengen area, it turned out to be bad for the French.


It would be very bad if it was changed for us. And even outside of


the EU we need to be able to facilitate movement of people


between both countries. I am not horribly pessimistic about the


future of the Le Touquet agreement. One of the consequences Brexit which


was predicted at the time was that this would come up for review and


the French would probably take a different view than they did before


Brexit. And before the referendum. I think it is inevitable that that


will go into the mixture of our bilateral relations but it is worth


bearing in mind that it is not linked directly to the EU at all.


Manual Macron has been pretty shameless in his ambition to your


French workers and money back to France, and as you know there are


many French workers here. They say London is the fourth biggest city in


France. Just quickly on the Le Touquet agreement, we remember the


chaos last year just after the referendum. I am afraid if we don't


have a plan, if we don't get our ducks lined up in a row, and stop


the megaphone diplomacy and think about the facts, we will have a


similar situation. But on the question of the finance sector and


so on, due to Brexit I believe we have lost hundreds of people who


work in the financial sector already and as a London MP that is something


that concerns me. I would like to get them back. We will leave it


there for the moment. The question for today


is all about Tim Farron. The Lib Dem leader has revealed


that, as a boy, he had a poster in his bedroom of a rather


unusual political icon. Was it:


a) Che Guevara At the end of the show Dominic


and Catherine will give Throughout the general election


campaign we'll be getting political insight from two top


political journalists. Today


we're joined by Christopher Hope of the Telegraph and the political


commentator Martha Gill. I am sure you are going to live up


to that great billing of the two of you! Welcome to the programme. What


sort of campaign is it going to be? Battle buses? Morning conferences?


How will it feel? I think no. Apart from the Lib Dems and Ukip, who are


doing press conferences, but not every morning. The Lib Dems have got


the yellow battle bus and we are yet to see a Tory or Labour one and it


is hard for me and mother to get onto them. Normally it is a few


camera crews and a wire service and that is it so we are left trying to


scramble to where they are going to be, and cut


them off at the pass. We have more control than ever with a short


campaign. Mother, what will you be doing? Chris has made suggestions.


How will you keep tabs and hold their feet to the fire? It is


difficult, particularly with the Tories. The campaign is all about


Theresa May. There has really been no difference between the local at


the general election in that respect, I think. The local and


general election have been exactly the same and all about Theresa May


and her message. Labour looks disorganised. I think probably what


will happen is local candidates are going to distance themselves from


Jeremy Corbyn at it. That is what we saw having the most success in the


local election. The Lib Dems will try as hard as they can to push the


anti-Brexit message. Let's talk about the issues, namely immigration


and the target that the Tories looked as if they may well restate


in terms of bringing net migration down to tens of thousands. Before I


come to you, this is what Theresa May had to say in Harrow.


It is important that we continue and we will continue to say that we do


want to bring net migration down to sustainable levels.


We believe that is the tens of thousands.


And of course once we leave the European


Union we will have the opportunity to ensure that we have control of


our borders here in the UK because we will be able to establish our


rules for people coming from the European Union into the UK.


That's a part of the picture we haven't been


able to control before and we will be able to control it.


Leaving the EU means that we won't have freedom


of movement as it has been in the past.


So they are going to go for it again. The Tories have got nowhere


near that pledge of bringing migration down to tens of thousands


so will it be third time lucky? It is not just the Tories, it was


Theresa May as Home Secretary, and it is on her watch. It is a problem


getting a net figure when you don't know how many people will leave the


country. You get the net figure when you take off the number of people


leaving and those coming back, which is why it is so hard to hit it.


Amber Rudd said yesterday that she thought the figure would be the same


as the last one and now Tories are slapping down. In that press


Conference that you played there, Theresa May will be discussing the


Le Touquet agreement with President Macron from France, which is very


interesting. The big question there is word of the Jungle camp go, the


north of France or cad? The fact that is on the table again could be


a problem for Theresa May. -- the north of France or Kent? She has


said it will not be freedom of movement as we have known it but


what will come in its place? The fact that she has stuck by that


100,000 figure from 2010 indicates that she is willing to tie herself


up, tie her hands, in order not to rock the Brexiteer vote at the


moment. That 100,000 figure was an albatross around David Cameron's


neck and many said it was the biggest mistake he ever made.


Theresa May is falling into exactly the same trap. It will become even


more toxic with Brexit as people watch that figure. It will be


something that the globalists in her party and the local lists can really


fight over. But she is willing to take that risk and really ensure


that this election doesn't get any... She doesn't lose any


Brexiteer votes. On freedom of movement we expected to go in a


similar direction at the moment. Let's look at health, Labour's


chosen issue today. They were talking about a range of things that


perhaps the most eye-catching is this idea of free NHS hospital


parking. Just listen to Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader. If you go


there in an emergency, I don't think you should be charged for doing so.


I have just been talking to nurses, some of whom are community nurses,


who go to different hospitals at different times, others do night


shifts and there is no public transport available, and they have


got to park their car and often they have to pay for the privilege of


parking at the place of work where they have got to be and they have


had frozen pay for seven years so I think it is absolutely right that


going to a hospital doesn't incur an additional charge. In reality it is


a charge on sickness. That will be popular, won't it? I can hear my


voice echoing. Sorry. For sure it will be popular. It plays very well


into Labour's key voters. Though more charges for parking, but


hitting people who can afford private insurance. -- no more


charges for parking. But it will face the same criticism that many of


Labour's policies do. Will this cover the cost? Parking fines and


charges have filled gaps in the NHS. Is this really something we want to


lose? But it is more than that. It is punishing any kind of aspiration.


People want to work hard and pay taxes for health care and fund the


wonderful NHS, but also pay money into an insurance scheme to go to


the doctor when they want to, and I think this policy is damaging to


aspiration. It is Jeremy Corbyn not reaching out. Parking charges have


been a big issue. We have written in The Telegraph about how unfair it is


to be taxed to go to sleep a relative in hospital but I think it


is a tax on aspiration and that is the problem he has got. Moving on


the television debates, Theresa May has said she will not do leaders


debate in terms of debating had to head with Jeremy Corbyn. Will


pressure come on them during the campaign? I think so. The BBC


announcement at lunchtime today, about having Question Time sessions


with voters in the audience questioning the leaders


individually. It will not wash. Theresa May seem to have won the


battle with the BBC. There will be a seven strong front bench debate. ITV


are going to have a go at doing the debates and good luck to them. Our


readers, voters and viewers want to see had to hand combat which they


will not get if Theresa May gets her way. Thank you. Let's pick up on


some of the points discussed there. Let's pick up on some of those


points, if this isn't going to be freedom of movement as we know and


what are the feasible alternatives? We'll have to see how this develops


because there are different options. Which would you prefer? Clearly when


you consider our European partners there is great design ability that


people should be able to come in and out of the UK. We are not about to


impose visas on millions of tourists coming over to visit Westminster


Abbey. So we will have people coming from the EU to work here. Not


necessarily because if you have a work permit system after we leave


the EU you'll be able to regulate the number of permits you give out.


The desirability of reducing overall net migration, I've no doubt about


it because if you look at the pressure it is based on communities


and infrastructure it is very real in those areas where they are most


concentrated. It is also right to say that achieving that reduction


will be very challenging. And very challenging to achieve that tens of


thousands pledged to bring down net migration. It hasn't been done,


anything like it. Is it sensible to be stated? We had net migration in


the tens of thousands in the 1990s. It hasn't been achieved since this


pledge... Absolutely right, successive governments have


indicated a desire to reduce immigration and not been able to


achieve that. On leaving the EU the options are doing and are increased


because the freedom of movement linked to EU membership goes. It


will still be a challenge but I don't criticise the Prime Minister


for coming along and making it an aspiration, indicating that they are


seeking to reducing it to those levels. And fail again if the past


record is anything to go by. Can we look to health. Very briefly, three


quick points. One, broken promise. Two, Labour would move towards


allowing all EU National is to remain on the first day of the


Labour government. That is our unilateral pledge. And three, take


students out of absolute target because it is breaking our


university system, one of our biggest exports. Why isn't it


happening because everyone seems to think it is right to take students


out of that target. The measure of international migration includes


students, something I've always found surprising. I don't think


people are concerned at the number of students coming into the country


as long as this number is not the feel of long-term migration. The


difficulty that the government has is to depart from an internationally


recognised Norm will attract criticism and I suspect that is one


reason why the Prime Minister is very reluctant to do it. Let's talk


about health because as well as free image is parking Labour wants to ban


junk food advertising during programmes like the X Factor, hardly


revolutionary, and if you go ahead with the proposal to stop car


parking charges again it has not been costed. So many people who are


ill are facing this extra cost every time they go to hospital. Is the


sort of thing Labour can do. It's not extremely expensive. It's


between ?160 million and ?190 million. It is feasible and I think


it is the correct thing to do, especially for staff who are running


out of appointments to put more pennies into the parking meter. We


need something workable. This is not only going to food banks, they have


to stump up extra money because they are on consultancy arrangements that


they don't know which hospital they will be ad from one day to the next


and it seems to me something we could sort out overnight but the


government has failed to do so until now. Let's move on.


With just over four weeks to go until the general


election on June 8th, the main parties' tax plans


Labour have put forward a so-called "personal tax guarantee".


This means that, under a Labour government,


there would be no rises in the standard rate of VAT, personal


National Insurance Contributions or income tax on those earning less


than ?80,000 a year, which is 95% of taxpayers.


However, the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell


said yesterday that people earning more than ?80,000 a year would have


refused to say whether or not they will repeat the so-called


"triple tax lock", this was a promise not to raise income


tax, VAT or national insurance, which they made at the last


In a recent interview Theresa May said "We won't be increasing VAT."


But she did not make a similar promise for either income tax


Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have said that they would raise


They say that this would raise ?6 billion,


and that money would be ring-fenced for the NHS and social care.


The party's leader Tim Farron said the money


Let's look at what John McDonnell the Shadow Chancellor said about


Labour's tax policy yesterday. What we are saying is anyone earning


below ?80,000 will be guaranteed, you're not have an increase in


income tax, the 80 national insurance contributions and for


those above ?80,000 we are asking them to pay a mod and bit more to


fund our public services. You had Theresa May on last week. You put


that good question to her about nurses, 11% cut in wages in the


last seven years and some of them having to go to food banks, nurses,


that can't be right. We will ask those higher earners just to pay a


bit more. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.


We've been joined to discuss the parties' tax promises


by the Liberal Democrat, Dick Newby.


Is it possible that the party will raise national insurance


contributions? Will have to wait for the manifesto but two things, Labour


will be much tougher on the corporations, we know that from


2011-15 Thames water, paid zero corporation tax. So we will make


sure that the corporations pay their tax. Why should we pay our 's and


they pay zero... We will change the legislation which the Tories have


had seven years to do and failed to do. They've failed to crack down on


corporations paying supertax. You can set the rate of 40 alike but


you've allowed a loophole such as the one that has developed under the


Tory government -- you can set which of the rate you like but if you have


allowed a loophole, these people are getting away with paying zero. How


will we get the money ad of the system which exists already... What


rate of corporation tax? You want to reverse any cuts. What rate will the


party set it at? That will be in the manifesto but the main thing is that


they pay it. What was the rate that they have been paying zero on?


That's the real injustice, Jo. Very briefly because I want to go onto


policies. This is a sideline. The questions to the legal framework of


corporation tax may be relevant and I am in favour of closing


loopholes... Voters won't be pleased if they found out corporations are


not paying their share. This having an impact on revenue is negligible.


The reality is that by cutting corporation tax the Conservative


government has raised the amount you get to corporation tax because the


economy has grown. This is what Labour will attack and, I'm afraid,


undermined because they have never had a coherent economic policy and


their tax policies always have the consequence of reducing economic


growth... They seem to be clear on the tax policy. Labour has promised


not to raise the standard rate of VAT. Does that leave open the chance


of raising the reduced rate of VAT paid on things like energy? Talking


about energy, big company like Thames Water, let's look at how much


tax they pay first. This is about Labour's tax policy... Our priority


is not your average person today paying more tax, it's about getting


the corporations, which are greedy, and taking all they can, as


disturbing, you have to agree on this, the government has done


nothing to crack down on these big companies. They can pay so much more


than an average person... And so according to John McDonnell is


people paying ?80,000. He will protect 90% of the working


population. That will be revealed in the manifesto. Of course but when


promises like this made people want to know that they are going to lead


the amount of money that say... Thames Cameron - David Cameron


wanted to cut down on business loopholes and yet Thames Water paid


no corporation tax in those years, how can that be fair? There was this


triple tax lock not to raise the three main taxes and of course


Philip Hammond did the opposite and tried to raise national insurance


contributions class war. Why should anyone trust what you say in your


manifesto. I hope the manifesto will avoid detailed pledges because


everything that I have ever seen shows that you have an intention


which is that they are a low tax party and we have been consistent in


trying to achieve that everyone but if you stop making detailed promises


particularly at a time of economic turbulence linked to leaving the


European Union you are likely to saddle yourself with potential


problems. I will read the manifesto with interest but in my view I think


that blocks are probably and desirable. Except that of swing


voters are trying to decide who to vote for and Labour say they won't


raise income tax and 95% of people, then you should vote Labour if you


want a lower tax. They've got a ?45 billion hole in their financial


projections, we will they fill it from, they've either got to borrow


it or they will have to raise taxes which will be equally bad, I would


not believe a word the Labour manifesto says on this. You promised


not to increase national insurance contributions. David Cameron said


that there wouldn't be an increase in VAT and appoint VAT. Being a


voter, Labour is going to be the party to relieve the tax burden so


far, it seems. We've taken 4 million people and of higher tax, we have


taken people out of tax altogether, the culmination of raising tax


thresholds and the living wage is likely to benefit the poorest. For


those reasons everyone should trust the Conservative government over


this because its record on this is very good. And what about Thames


Water? We've mentioned them, they are just one company. We are talking


about tax proposals. Dick, is it fair to raise all rates by the same


percentage, whether you are a basic rate taxpayer or a higher rate


taxpayer? The great thing about income tax generally is that it is


the most fair tax. On this policy, it means that a nurse, for example,


will pay an extra three or four quid a week, but someone on a quarter of


a million pounds will pay an extra few thousand pounds a year. This is


a fair way of dealing with a national crisis. The other parties


admit there is a problem that haven't found a way of dealing with


it because the Labour proposal is incredible, you can't get 6 billion


quid out of people who burn over ?80,000 a year because as we know,


once you put up headline tax rates, they stop paying it. Why is John


McDonnell being so timid, you won't raise anything like ?6 million,


which Dick Newby says will put more money in the NHS, it yours won't


raise much but it will put more burden on the people you want to


hit. We've had seven years to deal with rip-off companies who takes


much money out of our economy day in, day out... What John McDonnell


is saying is that that isn't where most of the money is coming from.


They've had seven years to do it and they haven't done it. What will this


race? This seems to be displacement activity. And the first to accept


that tax avoidance is a loophole but to suggest that this will certainly


lead to massive sums of money which will fund Labour's ?45 million black


hole I think is fanciful. What is the ?45 million black hole, what is


that referring to? They have referred to a range of things that


they say they wish to finance more and which on the face of it, when


you total the aggregate promises, they may clarify where that is but


when you aggregate it up is the figure. And John McDonnell has not


explained that. There have been a series of promises about more money


for everything. And let's face it, I am the first to accept that in any


society with public services, you can find a justification... And many


people will find many of those policies popular, especially if they


feel that there is a crisis, for example in social care and the


NHS... If that economy is wrecked in the process that money will never


come. The Tories have borrowed twice as much as both Labour governments


put together between 1997 and 2010. From 2010 to 2017 have borrowed...


As usual, the Lib Dems are attacking Labour. Let Dick Newby make his


point. You both failed to do with tax avoidance. No we didn't! Let


Dick Newby answer. Because of the high levels of investment that


Thames Water have made they offset that against their tax liability. If


you are saying you want to change... I thought that was separate...


Corporation tax in the last financial year went up considerably


because people invested less. If you want that to happen, find that there


is no easy huge bucks out of companies. We need to move on now.


You need incentives for investment, and the corporations, which happen


to be the Tory donors on the whole, they are the ones... You have made


your point, Catherine. I need to ask Dick Newby about something else. The


Conservatives have sent out a press piece suggesting that Labour


supporters should vote for the Lib Dems. Labour voters should make up


their minds for the most important thing is for them. If the most


important thing for them is Brexit, they have a hard Brexit Conservative


and a strong, moderate Labour candidate, who is a strong Remainer,


it wouldn't surprise me if they voted for that Labour candidate. But


you shouldn't be encouraging it as official party policy. It is for


everybody to make their own mind up in the seat where they live. So you


wouldn't want to adopt it as party policy as Vince Cable would like to


see? It is for everybody to decide in the seat where they live in the


absence of PR to decide who best represents their interest. Thank


you. In the last hour, the BBC has


announced the details of its special Election Debate on Wednesday May


31st, a seven-way debate on policy, involving senior spokespeople


from the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrat,


SNP, Plaid Cymru, Green Two days later on Friday June 2nd,


David Dimbleby will chair a Question Time Leaders Special


from York live on BBC One, featuring And on Sunday 4th June, leaders


Tim Farron and Nicola Sturgeon will take part in a second


Question Time Special, Leanne Wood and Paul Nuttall


will also face questions that Sunday in separate programmes


from Swansea and The final debate before the election


will be a Newsbeat Youth Debate in Manchester on Tuesday 6th June,


where leading Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP, Plaid Cymru,


Green and Ukip politicians will face questions in front of an audience


of 16 to 34-year-olds. Elsewhere Andrew Neil will be


presenting a series of one-on-one interviews with Theresa May,


Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron, Paul Nuttall and Nicola


Sturgeon throughout We've been joined by the BBC's head


of newsgathering and elections Welcome. There are reports that


Theresa May will be appearing on The One Show on Tuesday night. That is


true. She will be on the sofa at seven o'clock tomorrow night and


there will be other interviews with party leaders on the show. It is not


part of the debate strategy but that is true. And what about Jeremy


Corbyn's wife? It is up to Mr and Mrs Corbyn about whether they want


to appear as a couple. The invitation has been extended. The


seven way debate on the 51st of May that I mentioned, involving all the


major parties, it is trailed that senior spokespeople will take part


and not the leaders. Why not? -- on the 31st of May. Theresa May


announced that she would not take part in any television debate. We


went into the process of piecing together a plan for our programmes


knowing that the Prime Minister would not appear in that format. So


you accept did it right there and decided not to work for it? We asked


officials in Downing Street whether that was likely to change and we


were told it wouldn't on several occasions. We had a position that


was clear. The Prime Minister has decided not to take part in the


programmes, which is perfectly within her rights. We discussed


whether to do a seven hander or so-called leaders debate eliminating


the Prime Minister and her party. There were leader debates in 2010


and in 2015. Are you letting the Prime Minister off the hook by not


having a leaders debate with an empty chair? We don't really believe


in an empty chair. It is embarrassing someone and it is not


in the interests of the audience. We want a format that is for the


audience, who are large part the electorate. And if you want to


discuss immigration or the health service, the audience is best served


by hearing all the cases from the parties they can vote for. If you


are saying that because one or two leaders have decided not to take


part, you eliminate that argument from the picture, and don't that is


in the interest of the audiences overall. ITV have extended


invitations to the leaders of those seven parties and they will run that


debate with whoever replies. The leaders are very welcome to turn up


for hours and they know that. There will be a mixed bag. There will be


leaders and non-leaders from the various parties and ITV have made


their own perfectly legitimate decision but it is not the


conclusion we came to. Is anybody confirm that debate? A few people


but until all the cast list is confirmed, we will not publicise it,


we have said that to the parties. The debate that happened in 2015


involving Ed Miliband and other opposition parties, why not do


that again? I don't think it was investing for the audience because


you didn't hear from the governing parties, and there were two in the


coalition at the time and nobody was on the stage. It was a complicated


balance with other programmes and so on, and I think this time we have a


better solution given the circumstances that the Prime


Minister has decided not to do it. You don't think that if more


pressure is brought to bear, that eventually Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa


May would be forced to turn up? The freedom of speech comes with the


freedom not to speak. If political leaders decide for whatever reason,


and we have not discussed the reasons, it is up to the parties, if


they have chosen not to take part, we are not really into strong arming


people into the studio. We want to bring people in who want to debate.


Theresa May, is she running scared? I don't think so. Listening to what


has been said, I think the format is very interesting. Of course because


she is not and extended pressure to come. The point for me is whether


you are going to get the discussion. I have personally never found a


gladiatorial contests that we have had very helpful. It worked very


well in a presidential debate between Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel


Macron. But we are not a presidential state. So says Theresa


May, me, myself and I in this election. She has made it very


presidential between her job and Jeremy Corbyn. As far as I'm


concerned we don't have a presidential system and I don't want


to see one. I don't want a system where you can't grill the


spokesperson fully and where there is no proper debate. I am sure there


are better ways of doing it than having a gladiatorial contest. I


suppose it all comes down to Lynton Crosby in the end. No doubt Jeremy


Corbyn has strategies. Why is he not taking part? For the first time ever


we have a very independent minded person. Who doesn't want to take


part in debates either. He does want to do it provided it is fair,


meaning the top two people. Why not do the opposition debate? 72% of


people are apparently going to choose between the two main parties


so why not have those up there? It is all about brinkmanship. If Jeremy


said yes, then everybody would say where is Mrs May? The important


thing is that we get to hear within our own context of Parliament and so


on that we get to hear them. While we haven't got PMQs we haven't got


that weekly debate. What do you think of that idea? The key thing is


what is of interest to the audience and are we going to see the party


leaders, particularly those leading big blocks of numbers of MPs,


interacting with real people on live television? The Question Time


debates? Yes. And we have changed that format. It will be longer, 45


minutes each other than half an hour each. And we have included the SNP


in the format which we didn't do in 2015, to reflect the fact that when


Parliament dissolved they were a bigger presence than previously.


Both those things are in the interests of the audience, I think.


Thank you for coming in. After last week's local


election results, which saw the Conservatives make


gains across the country and Labour slip back,


the line from both party leaders was that there's still everything


to play for when it comes So could there be a big switch


in the way people vote Welcome to Harlow, is celebrating 70


years since it was designated as a new town. In a County Council


elections last week, the Conservatives made big gains and


there were small losses for Labour and the Liberal Democrats and losses


for Ukip. But at the general election, will people vote the same


way or change their minds? Can I ask how you voted in the council


elections last week? No. Are you going to vote for the same party in


the general election? Yes. But your political allegiance will remain


secret? Exactly. You have a strong sense of civic duty. Did you vote


last week? No. You don't then! Who did you vote for? Conservative. Will


you be voting Conservative on the 8th of June? Yes. Pop your ball in


the box. Would you vote on different issues for the Council compared to a


general election? The roads, the schools, the car parks, the town


centre policies, policies on housing. You are a different


headspace when it comes to the local elections? Yes. OK. Did you vote in


the council elections last week? No. OK. Did anyone vote in the council


elections? Anyone vote in elections last week? I do believe that


everybody should vote. The turnout here were 35% last week. Does that


make you ashamed to be an ethics person? It does. A fidget spinner?


You just do that? Is that what all the fuss is about with these things?


I have a tip-off that there is a comic convention happening down


there and the opportunity is too good to miss. Did you vote at the


local election? I wasn't here. Were you on a planet somewhere? Somewhere


in the galaxy. People should vote to ban Christmas. Will you be voting


Green? You have got to go with your hair colour. I think the council


elections will be a precursor to the general election. A bellwether. A


trailer for the main film? Unless there is an earthquake of change. I


think Brexited go through without any opposition. Jeremy Corbyn and


his team don't come over very well. But you will still vote Labour? Yes.


Even though it might not make any difference? Yes, because you have


got to keep voting and hope it turns around. We have a couple of switches


but the most people will vote the same way as they did last Thursday.


Thanks, Harlow. And we've been joined by Joe Twyman,


from the opinion pollster YouGov. Will most people vote the same,


local to general? There is the voter choice and also the decision to vote


or not, which other two interesting questions that we have got to answer


as pollsters. And we have seen previously that there is a lot of


churn between local and general election, especially when they are


so close to each other. Going back to 1983, Labour enjoyed being just


three points behind the Conservatives are the local


elections and one month later, they were 16 points behind in the 1983


election. Not a happy historical precedent if you are choosing 1983?


Or any opposition. And in 1987 the Conservatives gained 5% in the


months between the locals and the general. On that basis and looking


at the recent performance by Labour, you will desperately be hoping that


people switch between local and general. I think the big question is


the Ukip vote. Mrs May has responded by wrapping herself in the Ukip


flag, each one of the commentators said on the day that the BBC did the


coverage of that last Friday. It does explain her announcement today


on immigration. What about Labour's performance? Trying to keep Ukip


voters on board. Labour has got a very good promises around the ?10


minimum wage which could transform a lot of people's lives. Switching


between Ukip and Labour? Not a wholesale switch from Ukip to the


Conservatives? Two thirds of the people who voted Ukip in the last


election are moving to the Conservatives which could explain


why they are higher in the polls than previously but we have still


got an entire campaign left and things can change. Back in 2010, and


you are talking about television debates previously, the Lib Dems


jumped ten points in a week as a result of Nick Clegg mania, from the


first televised debate, and it fell back a bit. But substantial change


can happen. There is the potential for it to do so. I don't think it is


the most likely outcome in this campaign that campaigns can have an


effect and they have the potential to make that difference. Does it


follow that in local election campaigns people don't necessarily


vote on local issues in the way that Lib Dems would have us believe? They


vote for the party and the leader that they like. It depends on


timing. In some cases people vote on local issues but they also decide


not to vote in local elections when they decide to vote at the general


election, which can make things very different. How important for you is


the issue of vote share? If the seats were translated or the local


election gains were translated into seats it would not be the big


majority for the Tories. I am very wary about extrapolating between


local and national election results. You often get localised voting on


local issues. The turnout is low. It might provide an indication of the


way that people are thinking, but in my view I would be very careful


about saying just because it has gone well or did well at a local


election, you're going to do well at a national election. The other thing


is the long campaign and other things to be discussed. I feel


buoyed up by what happened last week and any Conservative is going to.


But I certainly don't translate that into some mathematical calculation


about what will happen in the general election. And I am sure it


will not be a mathematical calculation that you can make. In


terms of the policies you are talking about, you think the more


policies, the more popular Labour will become. What about seeing


Jeremy Corbyn? Jeremy is an independent minded person with a lot


of energy and he is running an energetic campaign. And he is an


asset as far as you are concerned? He has a lot of very good values and


people like the fact that as a committed person he will not walk


away in the way that David Cameron and George Osborne did. They walked


away after two years and they broke the pact with the electorate. Even


though it hasn't gone that well in terms of his personal support? We


still have four reached ago and we do have a lot of people. The


Conservatives have got a lot of money and we have a lot of people


knocking on doors. We have got a lot of people. I am in your constituency


and you haven't knocked on my door at my grandma is as well. Plenty of


doors do knock on! I might have been busy at work. But we have certainly


knocked on lots of doors in my constituency. Thank you for coming


in. Let's get a round-up of all today's


other election news now. Welcome to Election Corner. We are


in a sandwich this week. Last ago had the local elections, next week


we'll have the manifesto is, we are stuck in the middle. But don't


worry, plenty of tasty morsels, plenty of filling. Tim Farron


is getting Farron stuck into this election race.


The fell-running Lib Dem leader showed he doesn't


mind an uphill struggle at this fun run in Kendal.


Then he got some orange stuff thrown at him.


Oh, there goes Iain Duncan Smith doing Eminem.


He opens his mouth but the words don't come out.


He's choking now, everybody's joking now and the clock's run out.


I suppose that's what this election is all about.


Meanwhile Labour's Peter Kyle got the feline he ought


to help out on the campaign trail and held a ladder while someone else


Labour's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell


says he doesn't think the capitalist system should be brought down


I believe there's a lot to learn from reading Das Kapital, of course


there is, and that's not been recommended only by me but by many


others, mainstream economists as well.


No, they weren't at a swanky London nightclub but a press conference


Zero net immigration over the next five-year period.


And the things you can organise at a brewery.


Nicola Sturgeon out in Perth poured her


obligatory campaign pint and doesn't like things to go to waste.


All the party leaders are out this afternoon. Election Corner will be


here for the entire campaign. If you think we're missing something tweet


us. Thank you, Ellie. Let's discuss Ukip's immigration


policy in more detail now. We've been joined by the party's


immigration spokesman, John Bickley. Welcome to The Daily Politics.


Immigration statistics are notoriously hard to collect. How


much would it cost you and Ukip to institute this policy and get


precise data on who is leaving and who is arriving? That would be a


role for the migration control commission. I find it interesting


that this morning we've heard from Theresa May yet again, she's going


to promise to reduce immigration to tens of thousands. And what are you


promising? I am reminded of fool me once, shame on you, fool me two,


three, four times... What about your policy. You can't control the number


of people leaving, their skills and experience and what they take with


them. How would one in, one out of work? The key is that it's a rolling


average over five years so you give the migration control commission


flexibility on a rolling five-year period to take into account and


variants is. Rather than dictating absolute numbers by particular


sectors you are taking a broad average look at this over a


five-year period. What we are trying to say is that we need to get


immigration under control. What does that mean? For the last few years


the Tories have failed completely... What does it mean for you in terms


of numbers? We've got 600,000 people coming in or thereabouts, the size


of the city of Newcastle coming here. We want net zero immigration.


Net zero immigration. Basically 300,000 people leave, you want


300,000 people coming in. So on average over five years, it's flat.


Frank Field has been saying this for years... How would you do it?


Because rather than pretending the politicians will do all this


themselves because they never deliver that is why we'd have a


migration control commission. How many people would be involved in


this? It would be a massive expansion of government power to


monitor every individual person leaving and what skills they may be


taking... That's a challenge for the political class, they've failed


miserably. Is it achievable, and trying to work at the mechanics. It


is because other countries achieve it, Australia 41. Have they got a


zero? I don't know if they wish to grow their population, they are a


sovereign nation. We are saying it is politically correct to deliver


zero net migration and of the government can't do this they should


be of power. I am trying to challenge you on whether it is


achievable, not just desirable, is it achievable? If two migrants and


similar skills would your commission which was one over another based on


their country of origin? Bush if they had similar skills. No, we are


not interested in where people come from. That's up to the migration


control commission to come up with a plan for allowing us to balance


migration. That seems a reasonable way of moving this debate forward


and delivering what the British people want. They've had enough of


being lied to by the Tory party and the Labour Party would keep


promising them they will control immigration but they don't. That you


want to ban all and skilled migration to the UK for five years.


What impact will that have on certain sectors of the economy?


Maybe they will start employing more British people. Remember there are


already hundreds of thousands of low skilled immigrants in this country.


We are not short of low skilled immigrants. And employment is not


particularly high. If you look at the EU National is they account for


31% of the workers and food manufacturing, 21% in hotels and 15%


of those in warehouses. With the best will in the world if on day one


you sent them home and stop them coming in even over a five-year


period what would happen to those economies? We haven't said anything


about reducing the number of people already in this country. We would


want to see a situation where everyone here from the EU who has


been here, up to the day Article 50 was triggered, to be able to stay


here. That needs to be done on the basis that the British people who


reside in the EU in 2017 can stay there. We want to say to the EU lets


have a sensible deal where all the people from the EU are here, over 3


million, we want them to stay here and continue to contribute to the


British economy. My question was what impact would it have on the


sectors are listed when you think of the percentage of EU National is


working there. I don't think it will have any impact. We will is seasonal


agricultural leases, expect them to fall over time because we need to


get more of Oscar people brush our people into work. Theresa May is


talking the talk but not walking the walk, she's promised, with Cameron,


to bring down emigration, that is two prime ministers, not some second


string civil servant! Can you name me a country in the Western world


which aims to have zero net immigration? I'm not interested in


any other country. So there isn't one. I'm interested in us doing the


right thing for Britain. You think this is intrinsically desirable.


That's what I say and the British people want to see migration


Broadstone. John Bickley, thank you for coming in. -- they want to see


migration brought down. Of course, whenever the country goes


to the polls a whole host of smaller parties get their candidates


on the ballot paper, and throughout the campaign we'll be


taking a closer look Today it's the turn


of the Yorkshire Party, who are currently fielding twenty


three candidates in the election. The Yorkshire Party


was founded in 2014, It has just over 2,000


Twitter followers They're calling for


a Yorkshire Assembly, with powers similar to those


of the Scottish Parliament. It wants to see increased


school funding per pupil, a regional energy hub,


and it wants Yorkshire to be able They think Yorkshire Day,


which is celebrated on August 1st, And they want a Yorkshire team


to be able to take part And we've been joined


from our Hull studios by the party's leader,


Stewart Arnold. Welcome to the programme. You had


candidates stand in the local elections last week, how did you do.


Not too bad actually, our best results in our Short history, we got


up to 33% in Doncaster, narrowly failing to take a seat. The portents


are good and we are in a very good position coming into the general


election. How many seats are you fielding candidates in in the


general election? 23 pencilled in and I'm hoping we get up to 27.


Significant because it is double what we did last time in 2015, half


the number of seats in Yorkshire and I think that sends a statement of


intent as far as the party is concerned. What is your strong


message going to be on the campaign? Basically we feel we are losing out


on the devolution discussion that's going on. When we first started the


discussion was centred around Scotland and Wales and the


assemblies and time has moved on. Last Thursday we had elections for


Metro mayors in Manchester and other parts of the country. And all this


time Yorkshire has been left behind. Not the fault of the people, they


just haven't been engaged in the process, it is the fault of local


council leaders who can't agree the way forward and I think the general


election gives us the opportunity to put this argument front and centre


and say, OK, let's have a resolution on this, where are we going with


Yorkshire devolution. What is your judgment on the northern powerhouse


which George Osborne talked about so much? It was


a good idea. I'm not sure exactly what it means but I think George


Osborne did recognise that the UK economy is out of kilter. There's


fantastic potential in the north, not least in Yorkshire which if we


could unleash it would improve the economy overall. It seems bizarre


that London and the South East is racing ahead and leaving the rest of


the country behind. This political disconnect came through in the


Brexit referendum, in Yorkshire with voted for welcoming me to leave. You


point to Yorkshire having an economy twice the size of Wales. What is


your party's position on Brexit. We allowed people a free vote and as


occurred in Yorkshire most people did vote to leave. So what we are


arguing for now is a fair Brexit, fair deal for Yorkshire... What does


that mean. It means let's have an engagement first of all with the


Prime Minister because it took ten months in the general election


before she even visited Yorkshire since you became promised, frankly


not good enough, treating the people of Yorkshire with disdain. We need


to put our forest across just as London, Scotland, Wales and Northern


Ireland are in terms of what we want for the farming sector, fishing and


so on. Do you expect a breakthrough in this election for your party?


Yes, we do, because I think the results from Doncaster showed


there's great potential us. With Ukip going off a cliff and Labour


following them closely think we are in a position to begin to sweep up


some seeds. Stewart Arnold, thank you very much. -- sweep up some


seats. There's just time before we go


to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was, who did


Tim Farron have a poster Che Guevara, Jacques


Delors, Arthur Scargill So, Dominic, Catherine,


what's the correct answer? Margaret Thatcher. The Eurosceptic!


We're surprised. Not entirely, I can see that in youth he had wisdom


although he's lost it since. Is extraordinary with his


Euroscepticism. Who did you have on your wall, I was going to ask but


there's no time. Thank to both of you for being our guests today. I'll


be back with and you bye. -- I'll be back with


When it came to my TV habits, I'd watch anything.


Download Subtitles