10/05/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon folks - welcome to the Daily Politics.


Labour promises a massive increase in education spending in England


and says it will raise corporation tax by over a third


The Conservatives say the plans are "nonsensical".


The Green Party says it will no longer consider what it calls


"progressive alliances", accusing Labour and the Lib Dems of


failing to consider electoral pacts between broadly left-wing parties.


Green Party leader, Caroline Lucas, joins us live.


We've brought the Moodbox to Chester to ask people


whether they think Ukip have had their moment in the sun.


And, as part of our series on smaller parties


today, we speak to the leader of the Women's Equality Party.


And with us for the duration, the Ukip leader Paul Nuttall.


Now in the last hour, the Crown Prosecution Service has


announced that no criminal charges are to be brought over


14 police inquiries into Conservative Party election


spending in the 2015 general election.


One file from Kent Police remains under consideration,


although we won't hear today whether charges will be brought


Let's talk to our home affairs correspondent Tom Symonds.


What has happened here? Well, this has been running for a long time. It


followed an investigation by Channel 4 News into the way in which parties


were finding their candidates' campaigns in various constituencies.


The latest is that the police, in 14 different parts of England, have


been looking into, have passed on files to the Crown Prosecution


Service to see whether they would be charges, and today, the CPS has said


that in all of those 14 cases, there will be no charges. Why? Well, it is


down to the law which effectively says this, it says, it is an offence


to knowingly make a false tax oration, and in order to bring


charge, it must be proved that a suspect did know that they were


acting dishonestly in declaring election expenses. And clearly, the


CPS has decided that that is not the case in all of these situations


around the country. Largely, we're talking about the Conservatives'


battle buses, travelling around the country, putting activists into


various places. They always said it was national spending and it did not


reach their national spending limits, and the CPS is clearly


saying, there is nothing criminal here. That will come as a relief to


the Conservatives, because this was hanging over them, but there is


still one outstanding case in Kent - do we know when we might hear about


that? I think shortly, Andrew, within the next week or so. But the


cut-off date for candidates to take part in the general election is


tomorrow. So, if you want to pull out, or if you want to come into the


race, you have to say by tomorrow, and we are not going to hear about


this Kent case until next week. We understand it is all about the South


Thanet seat under way in which party resources were put into that seat,


whether or not it was national or local spending. But it does mean


that that will have to be left hanging, unless the constructs want


to choose another candidate in the next 24 hours, otherwise, they will


have to continue with the team they currently have in South Thanet. But


the Conservatives are very pleased with today's announcement, they say


that the CPS has confirmed what we knew all along, that the


Conservative candidates did nothing wrong, these were politically


motivated and unfounded complaints, this is from Patrick McLoughlin, the


chair of the party, which have wasted police time. He goes on to


say, a number of malicious claims continue to be spread on the


internet. He says, people should be aware that making false claims about


candidates is an electoral offence. So, a hard-hitting response from the


Conservatives. Thanks for bringing us up to date.


Now, it's another busy day in the election campaign.


For the latest, I'm joined from College Green by Katy Balls


from The Spectator, and Stephen Bush from The New Statesman.


Let's kick off with Theresa May, hosting the Nato general secretary,


Jens Stoltenberg. Oh, no, we have Jeremy Corbyn instead. Let's remove


that for a moment... Anyway, they were together at No 10, it was not


just a courtesy call, Jens Stoltenberg would like some


commitment from Theresa May in terms of more troops in Afghanistan. What


would that do to this election campaign? Well, one would assume it


would ring the issue of our involvement in Afghanistan in to the


picture. Perhaps it would help Labour, but also it would be


possibly hurting them on security issues. So it is hard to see who


would benefit from this as an election issue. In terms of Labour,


Katy Balls, what do you think about this call from Nato? He said he


would be happy to agree to a request like that, and that kind of makes


sense, it fits with his own non-interventionist approach. And I


think a lot of the public might agree with it. There is a very


lukewarm reaction to sending more troops to Afghanistan. But because


Theresa May wants Britain to be outward-looking post-Brexit, I also


think she will want to keep these Nato commitments. What about our


actual commitments already, in terms of spending? We are supposedly


living up to the Nato commitment of spending 2%, but actually, in the


papers this morning, there is a letter saying that Theresa May's


boasts of spending that are actually an accounting deception, what do you


make of that? We know that there is a lot of creative accountancy about


how you get to that defence targets. 2% we expect that to be a subplot of


the election. But again, Labour does not want this election to be about


national security. And Katy Balls, will it come an issue, do you think,


or will this just pass by? I think we saw last week kind of David Davis


and Philip Hammond stood in front of a poster of a bomb, and said, Jeremy


Corbyn would not give bombs to the army, they're quite happy on


defence. And I think Labour are unhappy on defence. The Shadow


Defence Secretary has suggested about giving more money to the army,


but I think a lot of people still would not be happy voting for Jeremy


Corbyn, given about his comments about whether or not he would kill


the leader of Isis. What about Europe, could cook yesterday, Jeremy


Corbyn seemed to that the issue of Brexit was saddled, and then would


not quite answer the question about whether if he was prone minister, he


would actually take Britain out of the EU? What did you make of that?


It seemed very strange, partly because Jeremy Corbyn is a lifelong


Eurosceptic, other than about -- other than about the six months of


the referendum. The fact that he stumbled on that is a bit of a


mystery. And Katy Balls, do you think it was just a stumble or was


there more to it than that? I think it's just typical of Labour at the


moment, their whole Brexit strategy seems to be to say one thing, the


issue of Brexit is settled, which will help with the Labour Brexit


voters, and then he goes on to refuse to say whether Britain is


actually going to leave the EU. Last night, of course, we had a


hard-hitting interview with Theresa May and her husband on the one show.


Let's take a quick look... How hard is it to win a negotiation with your


wife? That's a good question. There is give and take in every marriage.


I get to decide when I take the bins out, not IF I take the bins out!


There is boys' jobs and girls' jobs. I do the traditional boy jobs, by


and large. If you are the kind of man who expects his tea to be on the


table six o'clock every evening, you could be disappointed. Do you make


the team? From time to time. Theresa is a very good cook indeed,


actually. Yes, at home, we lived in the flat at Downing Street but we


like to get home at weekends, and that's where most of my cookery


books are. How do you think that interview went in terms of Tory HQ?


It was quite awkward to watch. But at the same time, I think the


Conservatives working to show Theresa May's more personal side,


softer side. Which it probably did achieve, even though there were


those awkward moments. But do you think overall it was positive for


them, Stephen Bush? Yeah, it would have irritated people like me, with


the boys jobs, girls' jobs thing, but it showed her to be a warm, Home


Counties woman. Paul Nuttall, would you like to appear on a show like


that? Not particularly, it is not really my cup of tea, to be honest


with you. I think there is a fine balance between your public life and


private life. It's horses for courses, really. I think there is a


danger sometimes with spouses that they can become too involved, and I


think Cherie Blair was a perfect example of that, I could argue maybe


Michelle Obama as well. So it is horses for courses, it is not for


me. But the public quite like to see the personal side would it worry


you, would you feel uncomfortable having to do that more personal


stuff? Not particularly. I have done a number of interviews on a more


personal level, I have to say that I've always been very keen to keep


my private life private. Again, it's horses for courses. If Theresa May


wants to go on shows like that and bring her husband out, that's


entirely up to her. So how are we going to do the boys' jobs and


girls' jobs on this programme? As usual, I'll do the girls' jobs!


Crime writer James Patterson has joined forces with which political


figure to write a thriller set in the White House?


At the end of the show, Paul Nuttall will give


Labour says it will hike up business taxes to fund a major increase


in education spending in England, if it wins the election.


The party's plans for what it calls a National Education Service


would see class sizes for five- to-seven year-olds kept below 30,


while almost ?5 billion extra would be pumped into the English


Labour says it will all be funded, primarily, by increasing


It will cost up to ?6 billion when you send money to Scotland and Wales


for education as well. Labour have today said that they'll


create what they call Under the plans, a future Labour


government would give schools a real-terms funding increase,


reduce class sizes to under 30 for five- to seven-year-olds,


and give free school meals And Labour would also restore


the educational maintenance allowance for college students,


scrap fees on courses for adult learners and put more money


into maintenance grants Let's take a look at Jeremy Corbyn


explaining the thinking behind This was Labour's Shadow Education


Secretary speaking earlier today. We will secure the best education


possible for every single child And that starts with proper


funding of our schools. We will reverse the ?3 billion


of cuts that our schools And protect per pupil funding over


the course of the next Parliament. And, unlike the Tories,


when we say real terms, To fund their proposals,


Labour say they would give schools in England an extra


?4.8 billion a year. The money would be paid


for by raising corporation tax. The Conservatives say Labour have


already spent the extra revenue from corporation tax and they've


described Labour's Well, this is what the Institute


for Fiscal Studies had to say about Labour's corporation


tax plans earlier. The Labour Party proposals would


certainly raise more than enough from corporation tax


to pay for these increases But, of course, an increase


in corporation tax It will reduce investment


by companies in the UK and, in the long run,


it won't raise as much as it might in the short run,


as companies change their behaviour, reduce investment or,


indeed, move abroad. Joining me now from Birmingham


is the Shadow Business Minister, Jack Dromey, and in the studio,


I'm joined by the former Welcome to you both. Jack Dromey,


first, when you look at the figures, it looks like by 2021, you're going


to spend over the UK an extra 6 billion for education, and you say


it can all be paid for by raising corporation tax by a third. But


haven't you already spent some of that corporation tax on other


things? We are determined to establish a national education


service. You have to find those commitments. We will fund them from


corporation tax. That will fund a very ambitious


pledge to the young people of this country, to their parents and to the


teachers of this country. In terms of commitments, we are now into a


general election period. Therefore, we are determined, Andrew, that


every single pledge we make, we cost so that the British people can be


confident that we will not only make the pledge, but unlike the Tories


who always break their promise, we'll deliver on the pledge. Let's


look at this. I thought you'd already promised to use Corporation


Tax to give pay rises above inflation to NHS staff? We are


making commitments now in relation to a general election. We've, hang


on, we've been looking at a whole range of commitments that might be


made. You will hear in relation to the NHS, the announcement we've


already made. If you look at the totality of what can be raised on


that increase of Corporation Tax over the next four years, it's


actually ?50 billion, in excess of that. These are your own figures.


Not what the... Let me clarify, is it your plan now not to pay for the


increase in NHS staff pay by Corporation Tax? We will honour our


commitment to health service staff. But will you financial it from the


Corporation Tax revenues? The commitment made by John Ashworth is


a commitment that we will honour. The interesting thing about the IFS.


How will be finance it? The interesting thing is today the IFS


say our figures are sound. They raised a question mark over the


economic impact. Our strong view is this, we've a chronic problem in


this country of skills and productivity. We have to sort that.


I understand that's the case. I'm trying to work out how you're going


to pay for it. On this programme, your head of campaign, you're in an


election campaign, you're head of the election campaign Andrew Gwyn


said categorically, you'd use Corporation Tax to fund a pay rise


for the NHS is that still your policy or not? We stand by that


commitment. And the financing of it? Yes, the totality of what can be


raised, in terms of what we're proposing on Corporation Tax, is in


excess of ?50 billion. You've accumulated that. How much by 2021,


how much extra will Corporation Tax be bringing in under your scheme?


Under our scheme, it will raise in excess of ?50 billion. No, you've


added up all the years. I'm asking you by 2021, how much extra that


year, will Corporation Tax bring in? In excess of ?50 billion, Andrew.


That's over four years Mr Dromey. It won't bring in ?50 billion in one


year. Total Corporation Tax receipts at the moment are ?50 billion. You


cannot bring in ?50 billion extra in one year. Can I suggest this, don't


interview yourself. Allow me to answer the question. Can I suggest


you answer the question. We're clear. The IFS said our figures are


sound. They haven't said that, actually. We're very clear we can


raise in excess of ?50 billion. That will enable us to fund our education


pledge and other pledges as well. We stand by that. You've pledged or


Jeremy Corbyn's pledged to scrap university tuition fees. Will that


be paid for by a rise in corn ration tax? Wait for the manifesto. Today,


we're focusing on our education commitments in terms of that


national education service, schools and post-school, particularly for


the colleges. At the next stages, we'll move on to the universities


and tuition fees. So, the tuition fees are not included in the extra


six billion you're already committed to? No, that will be in the


manifesto. Let me go on to this business of Corporation Tax being a


magic money tree. What assumption in your calculations have you made if


Corporation Tax is increased by a third, that companies will change


their behaviour and you will not get as much as you project. What


assumption have you made about that? Andrew, we need badly to invest in


the next generation. I'm not arguing about that. Crucial to the success


of our country, including the economic success of our country. I'm


not arguing about that. I stress again, we have to resolve this


problem of productivity and skills. My question to you Mr Dromey, what


assumption as you project a rise in Corporation Tax as you increase the


rates, that companies will change their behaviour and you won't get


the money that you're hoping for? Companies, of course, will take into


account impacts upon them in terms of taxation. Andrew, we will still


be the lowest Corporation Tax in the G7 countries. You won't be actually.


You won't be Mr Dromey. Let's just look at this. You've raised if. You


are the business spokesman for your party. Donald Trump is pledging to


cut Corporation Tax to 15%. Mr Macron in France is pledging to cut


Corporation Tax too. Just across the Irish Sea is a place called Dublin


where Corporation Tax is 12%. So, if you go to 26%, yes, you may well


raise more money but as Shadow Business Secretary, you must surely


have some calculations that you will lose some because people will simply


move? It's a statement of truth. That 26% right now is still the


lowest in the G7. If I was you, I would not rely upon pledges mid by


Donald Trump. We're relying on your pledges to fund our education


system. You can count upon our pledges. It comes back to the simple


reality in economic terms, this country will not succeed and its


young people will not succeed unless we have a national education service


that backs them, their parents and their teachers. Let me clarify this


one more time. You're projecting increased revenues on a raises of


Corporation Tax over four years by one third. And your assumptions and


projections assume companies it will not in any way change their


behaviour and you will get that money. How is that in any way


credible? Of course companies will take account of taxation in terms of


decisions they make. But the companies I deal with here in


Birmingham and all over the country, all say the same thing. We can't get


Labour, we can't get skilled labour. We need investment in skills for the


future. You've made that point. It's not what I'm asking you. And what


will be of major benefit, not just to the young people who will get on


in life, but what will be of major benefit to the public, private


sector and economy in the this country is if we have many more


people equipped with the education they deserve and skills. It's


absolutely central to the economic success of Britain. I understand


that, my argument with you has been how to pay for it. I think we're


done now. I understand your press office didn't want to take part in


the discussion with Mr Gove. If you want to stay and listen to what he


has to say and perhaps come back for ap coent, you're welcome to do so or


you're welcome to go. What would you like to do? I'm happy to stay.


Perhaps he can answer this question. I ask the questions. You ask and


I'll come back at the end. Whatever the mechanisms for funding an


increase in education, particularly for schools, is it not clear our


schools do need more funding? I think our schools need reform and


our schools need healthy funding. It is the case that the Conservatives


have safeguarded the amount overall that goes into schools in real terms


and in cash terms, the amount per pupil has been safeguarded. The


National Audit Office which we can agree is a pretty reliable monitor


of these things, an independent. In real terms, schools will have to


find cuts of ?3 billion. 8%, by 2020. Labour is talking about


raising money for education. We can argue about how they'll fund it.


They're talking about putting more in. You, in reality, in real terms,


you are are cutting. It is the case the amount per pupil in real terms


is protected. In cash term. But in real terms, you are right, we are


asking schools to deal with the consequences of tighter budgets.


Let's be fair, before 2015, we protected per pupil funding in real


terms. At a time when other parts of the public sector were having to


take the strain, schools received a better deal. I sympathise with the


position that heads and teachers have. But it's critical to


appreciate that it's not simply funding that improves education.


It's reform as well. I understand that. But you can't do it without


money. The mantra has been reform and money. Your manifesto last time,


page 2034 said as the number of pupils increase, so will be amount


of money in our schools on current pupil numbers forecast, there will


be real terms increases. You've broken that promise. There are not


real term increases per pupil. There are real term increases overall.


You're right. Not per pupil? No, that was the case between 2010 and


2015. It is the case umming up now That there will not be real term


increases per pupil. That's correct. At a time, you heard Jack dram


saying there, how important skilling the population is. You were part of


the Brexit campaign. We need to be better educated, better skilled than


ever. Why would any Government contemplate cutting in real terms


per pupil funding? ? There are two things. The first is the overall


increase in school population has been driven by a baby boom and


migration under Labour that was not controlled. By leaving the EU we can


better control immigration. You've not done so, so far. These kids are


already in the school's. It doesn't matter if you control it down the


road. These kids are goings through the primary system now and you're


cutting the per head funding in real terms? You will be aware 1.8 million


children are in good and outstanding schools compared to 2010. Education


in England has been improving while education in Scotland and Wales has


been moving backwards. You will also be aware, the free schools we've


created have created good and outstanding where they did not exist


before. We do need to ensure funding is reformed and the Education


Secretary is seeking to reform funding in order to make it fairer.


If you concentrate simply on cash and don't look at the broader


context of what's happening in our schools, you fall into the trap of


believing more money automatically is the answer to our educational


challenges. I'm not falling into that trap. Well, Labour have. Not


only that, they've also as you eloquently pointed out in the course


of that interview, Labour will kill the goose that lays the Godden eggs.


Labour's approach to Corporation Tax is not going to raise a sustainable


sum of money to support our schools. It will change the behaviour of


businesses, it will lead to a flight of capital and lead to the economy


crashing because of the nonsense Calais preach towards economics. Let


me ask you this. It plays to the idealogical approach. As schools in


England are being asked to find ?3 billion of cuts, Philip Hammond is


able to find another ?320 million for grammar schools. Where's the


sense in that? We're giving people choice. But you're cutting the money


that goes to the kind of schools, you're asking for cuts to the kind


of schools that most children go to? We're actually ensuring every child,


whether in a grammar comprehensive or any other type of school will


have the money following them, protected in cash terms. I think


it's... You Andrew, have written and argued in the past for the merits of


selective education. New selective provision will only be set up where


there is a popular demand for it. I'm not sure I have, even back to


the dim and distant past. Are you in favour of grammar schools? Yes, I


am. More grammar schools? Yes. Why didn't you increase grammar schools


when you were add Kaags secretary? I did many things. That wasn't one of


them. One of the things I'd have loved to have done. Whether I was


for and against them. I am in favour of increased selection. We increased


selection at the age of 16 but not able to increase it anywhere else,


the Liberal Democrats were not in favour. My understand is you didn't


push for it either. That's another issue. Paul Nuttall's been patient.


I'll go back for a comment from Jack Dromey then too. I don't think


raising Corporation Tax is a good idea. I think it is a bad idea. I


think Michael's right, it will result in a flight of capital.


Ireland has Corporation Tax rate of 12.5%. Donald Trump, I think, will


bring it down to 15%. You'll see business leave these shores. That


will mean less tax revenues, less work for people. It is a bad idea.


However, I will say we really need to reform our education system. Ukip


was the first party to come out in favour of grammar schools in 2010.


Jack Dromey, what's your reaction to what you've heard? I live in the


real world. In my constituency, the schools face a ?10 million cut. I


led a delegation of excellent head teachers to meet with the Schools


Minister. They said, we'll have to sack teachers, teaching assistants,


cut back on our curriculum. Close the school at Friday lunch time.


They asked the Government, what do you expect us to do? You're making


life impossible for us. It is absolutely right, that what we've


done is listen to schools, to listen to young people and to listen to


parents and put them first. There is not a single idea that Labour has on


education which will actually lead to an improvement in the classroom.


Labour have opposed every one of the steps we've taken to improve


testing, the curriculum and give parents more choice. So you would


sack... This talk of a national educational service is a strong an


horse of getting rid of academies, free schools and the rigorous


changing we've made. I'm going to have to... We've overrun. I'll have


to bring this to an end. Jack Dromey, thank you for waiting.


Michael Gove, thank you for being here.


Now, three Labour party activists in Surrey have been expelled


from the party after they decided to back a candidate who is standing


for the National Health Action party against the Health Secretary,


Well, we can speak now to Steve Williams, who was one


of those members kicked out of the party.


You have been expelled from the Labour Party after nearly 50 years


as a supporter, but you must have known that that was what would


happen if you backed a rival candidate? I think it's very


disappointing, Jo, to be honest with you. As you say, I have been a


member of the Labour Party for 46 years, and I have been expelled from


the Labour Party for actually doing my best to try to secure the outcome


of defeating a Conservative MP, a member of Parliament for South West


Surrey, who as Secretary of State for Health has done untold damage to


the National Health Service. But you understand the parties rules,


because you are a long-time member, and they're very clear, that if you


publicly support a candidate running against the official Labour Party


candidate, then you will be expelled? In fact it happened to Ken


Livingstone many years ago when he ran for mayor? Well, what we are


seeking to do, actually, is to get Labour candidate to stand down in


the constituency. It is the overwhelming view of Labour Party


members in South West Surrey that the candidate that has been selected


for the South West Surrey constituency should be stood down.


And your parties branch agreed to that, there was agreement locally


for the Labour Party candidate to stand down, and was it the NEC who


actually went over your heads? It was indeed. I have a letter from the


head office of the Labour Party saying that I have been in and from


the membership register of the Labour Party for actually trying to


secure the return of a non-Conservative member of


Parliament in South West Surrey. And this is happening all over the


country. There are people who are seeing that it is appropriate for


Labour Party members and supporters, and for Liberal Democrat members and


supporters, and for Green members and supporters, in different parts


of the country, to stand down their candidates, to stand aside, for the


candidate who is best placed to defeat the Conservatives. There is a


regressive alliance of the right, Ukip is supporting Conservative


candidates in this election in order to defeat the left. So, why can't


the progressive side of politics do the same? You can understand, from


the point of view of the party leadership, and it's ruling


executive, that this is the official opposition and it should be fielding


candidates in every seat and should be able to win as many of those


seats as possible. If you do what Ukip has done, to some extent, by


agreeing to stand down candidates, you admit in the mind of the public


that you cannot put up a proper opposition against the ruling party?


Labour is the alternative party of government in this country, and I


want to see Jeremy Corbyn in number 10 Downing Street, and it is


precisely... And there are residents for the Labour Party standing down


its candidates. In 1997, in Tatton, there was a deeply unpopular


Conservative member of Parliament in Neil Hamilton, who has now moved


over to Ukip, deeply unpopular member of Parliament, and the Labour


Party and the Liberal Democrats stood down in Tatton in order to


enable Martin bell to stand as a unity candidate. And we have got


that unique opportunity in South West Surrey now, we've got the


opportunity to defeat one of the most unpopular secretaries of State


for health that we have had in this country, who has perpetrated a


untold damage to the National Health Service. Will you reapply to join


the Labour Party? Of course I will, the Labour Party is in my soul, I


want to remain a member of the Labour Party. I didn't leave, I was


thrown out. Caroline Lucas, joint leader


of the Green Party, had been calling but yesterday claimed Labour


and the Lib Dems had "betrayed" their voters, and the Green


Party would now focus When we last spoke, I think you were


at your conference in Bristol and you were quite enthusiastic about a


Progressive Alliance. What has gone wrong? What has gone wrong is that


the leadership people around Jeremy Corbyn have absolutely put the lid


on this happening. I said it is a betrayal, and that is quite strong


word, but it feels like, without some kind of co-operation in a


handful of marginal seats, we know how the story ends come we know that


we wake up on the 9th of June thinking, how on


earth have we allowed a massive Tory landslide? So, there is a huge


appetite for this with grassroots Tory members, as we have just seen


with Steve Williams. What is so sad is that all of this excitement up


and down the country, I have been speaking at meetings all across the


country, huge amount of enthusiasm for it, but it has been stopped by


the party leadership. So, if it is being stopped at a national level,


could it still happen at a local level? I think the example of Steve


Williams shows that they will not let it happen. People will get


expelled. And this is not just about trying to get rid of the Tories,


although it is that, but it is also about trying to return people to


Parliament who will fight for a fairer electoral system so that we


do not have to have all of these debates, so that people can vote for


what they believe in. Over a million people voted Green in 2015, with a


proportional system, we would have had 24 MPs, that would have been a


better representation of views across the country. At the


by-election in Richmond, who offered the Green Party a quarter of ?1


million to stand aside in favour of the Lib Dems? I do not know the name


of the person, I know of the incident but it happened after the


decision had already been taken to stand down - and the money was not


accepted. Any indication that we were standing down in order for


money is categorically wrong, it happened after the decision was


taken, and the money was not accepted. But somebody did offer


?250,000? I believe so, that is my understanding. As joint leader of


the party, somebody offers your party that amount of money and you


do not know who it is? I don't remember the name. It went through


our ethical checks, it did not pass our ethical checks, the money was


not accepted. But your candidate did stand aside? Our candidate had


already decided to stand aside, as has that candidate decided again,


because what we had was the chance to oppose Zac Goldsmith, who had


been running a very racist campaign in London, and we wanted to try to


get somebody in there who was going to support electoral reform. Except,


you will have seen the website which has a leak in internal document from


your Richmond party, saying that party staff from the centre put


pressure on local activists and said that there was, quote, an offer of a


large donation conditional on the party demonstrating its desire for a


Progressive Alliance? Andrew, this has all been completely exposed as


being two or three annoyed people in the Kingston party, who did not


agree with the decision to stand down. As a result, they put out a


document which has been criticised, condemned, we looked into this,


there was an independent investigation into it which


absolutely said that there was no substance to the claims. So you're


saying that the local chairman of the Kingston Green Party, and two


other members, have made this up? I think they have either been misled


themselves, or they've been misinformed, or somehow false


information is in that document. That is what our council


independently declared. One of them has already gone off and joined the


Labour Party. I think this is quite important. It is not true. If this


was true of another party... If it were true, Andrew... You would be


the first to condemn that? I certainly would, and that's why I am


so robustly challenging, as I have done all along the way, that what


was in that report was absolutely wrong. The decision to stand down...


I do not remember the name because I have never spoken to the person. You


don't yet offered a quarter of a million every day! We turned it


down, Andrew. They could welcome back and offer the money in a


different context. You will need to know who that person is. The party


knows who it is, I am very sorry, Andrew, I don't have that name. I


came on to talk about the importance of defeating the Tories over going


to be on course for a landslide victory, if we don't get our acts


together on the left, and that is what I would love to talk about,


because it's incredibly important! This is very important to clear up


as well. I have cleared it up for you, Andrew, it is completely false!


What if this money has come in in another way? I know perfectly well


it hasn't because our chief executive is all over this, of


course it hasn't! The order to stand aside apparently came on the


instruction of the chief executive! It's completely false. The idea that


we are spending minutes of valuable national our time talking about a


report by three people who have absolutely categorically been shown


not to be telling the truth, either by design or accident, is a real


shame, because we should be talking about the fact that... One of them


isn't because he has just joined the Labour Party! That could be a


Progressive Alliance! It could but what I want to talk about is the


fact that Theresa May is on course for a landslide victory, and that is


bad for the people Labour says it stands for, it is certainly bad for


progressive politics in this country as the kind of politics she will be


putting in place is not just a hard Brexit, but also taking money out of


our education system, our NHS is on its knees, the environment is


nowhere in the debate, and has been so far, so I hope you will have me


back tomorrow when we are launching our Environment Minister 5-4. I will


have you back if you can remember that name! Andrew... -- launching


our environment manifesto. You're not standing against Vince Cable in


Twickenham, so there are still areas where you are pulling back a bit to


allow a non-Tory to get in, is that right? Absolutely. How many seats


will that be in? About ten or a dozen. And that will be largely in


favour of Lib Dems? It is essentially when either the Lib Dems


or Labour will commit to a fairer electoral system, one which does not


give power to the government on less than 24% of the eligible vote. Would


you stand aside? We will stand aside where there is a situation where a


real Brexiteer, not a fly by night Brexiteer, is... Basically, who have


changed their tune over the years. Like Theresa May! Yeah, actually, we


are standing against Theresa May, actually. People who have campaigned


with us for years, campaigned for Brexit, we will give them a free


run. We will leave it there. During the election, our intrepid


reporters will be out and about testing the mood of the nation


with our ever scientific Moodbox. So, Adam, where has


the mood taken you today? Hi, not very in trap pit today,


because I am down by the River Dee in the City of Chester, and it's


absolutely gorgeous. What a nice day. In the last election in 2015,


the Labour candidate won by just a few votes over the Conservatives.


And Ukip got 8%. Now, this time round, if Ukip voters perhaps voted


for another party, or the Ukip candidate stood aside, that could


have a crucial impact on the results. So we have taken the


Moodbox out onto the streets of Chester to ask people, should the


purple party pack up or fight on, now that Brexit seems to be


happening? They're pretty much


over now, aren't they? Their job is done, and we probably


won't see very much of them now. Is that a Ukip balloon


you've got on your pram? is that because you're


a mega Ukip supporter? How do you think Ukip


will do at this election? When he's 25, do you think the UK


Independence Party will still exist? Er, unfortunately, I don't think it


will, but I think if you're that passionate about your beliefs,


I think they should fight on. The way Labour is at the moment,


I think it's very vulnerable, and it's probably looking


for a new party that could come How do you think Paul Nuttall,


the new leader, is doing? Well, if I said something,


it would be defamatory, wouldn't it? Well, there's nothing to


say nice about him, is there? Hello, sir, what do


you think about Ukip? Look at that, a decanter


in the shape of a Stormtrooper. What do you think Ukip should do,


pack up or fight on? Ukip are talking about things


like banning the burqa and things like that -


is that up your street? Covering your face and that,


you just can't see people. So, you think they should fight


on on issues like that? Yeah, fight on with


issues like that. The Brexit vote has happened,


we're leaving Europe, so their purpose has gone,


and you can see them kind of scrambling around,


appealing to far-right policies, and the only reason why


they would stick around is so that something nastier doesn't follow,


in my opinion. Are you like a professor


of politics, or something? There we go, a few people think


the party should fight on, but many, Our scientific mood box says it all.


You're wasting your time and theirs. It is the short-term narrative.


People are believing Theresa May. She's able to talk the talk and act


tough on Brexit. When accept comes and she has to start walking the


walk, when negotiations start, I think she'll begin to backslide. I'm


confident that will happen. When she does, Ukip will become more relevant


than ever before. It will be too late then. It's already on the


slide. If you want to look at something more scientific, we only


have to look at local elections last week. You lost every single council


seat you were defending. Quite impressive from one point of view.


That's a clear message from the electorate? We knew these elections


would be the most tough we'd face. Did you think you'd lose every


single council? I expect add real bad result. We knew these would be


the most difficult local elections we were going to fight. They were


made doubly difficult by the fact the Prime Minister called a general


election. She did her impression the day before with the fight against


Jean-Claude Juncker. That's politics. It was convenient. It made


it very difficult for us. Look, politics is cyclical. It isn't just


about the short-term but the long-term. If Ukip stays on the


pitch, I believe it will prosper in future. It will be difficult to stay


on the pitch. With regards to Brexit, people are believing Theresa


May, in your own words. For now. In the meantime, you have to watch


what's been happening within your own party? Aaron banks, your major


donor says you've crashed the car. Douglas Carswell, your only MP until


he threw in the towel. Did you ever think you'd hear Aaron Banks and


Douglas Carswell agree on anything? No, you may have a point there.


Seriously, this is all short-term thinking. What we need to do...


Aaron Banks says you crashed the car, Douglas Carswell is gone. That


doesn't matter. Politics will come back on to our turf. Ukip has to


hold its nerve. Stay on the pitch and the future will be very bright,


I'm sure. You lost all those council seats. These were local elections.


That's because they don't see you as a party beyond Brexit. If it


continues people brief Theresa May on the issue of coming out of the


EU, you don't have anything to offer. Yes, you've put forward


policies. But people aren't interested in you for those or not


in any large numbers? Firstly, when she begins the backslide, I think


she'll backslide on fisheries. There may be some deal on freedom of


movement. I think we may end up paying this divorce bill. People


will feel betrayed. Where will these people go? Not lemme or Green or


Labour. They'll come back to Ukip. What can Ukip do? In what sense? In


terms of changing her direction on Brexit. If you haven't any local


council I wills. We have. Or enough local councillors or MPs, if you


don't get any in the general election how will you do it? How did


we put David Cameron under pressure to give us the referendum in the


first place. Ukip goes up in the poles, stays strong, elect otherly


viable. I believe that will be the case in years to come. There isn't a


broader offer from Ukip on Brexit? If you look, when you see our


manifesto, it will be radical, forward thinking. We'll lead the


debate. I think our manifesto in many ways will be a decade ahead of


its time. I guarantee the policies we put forward now will no doubt


about the policies of the mainstream political parties or Government


policy in ten years' time. One of your councillors in Essex quit your


party saying it was a spent force. He was defecting a Jeremy Corbyn's


Labour Party. People are going in all ebb directions from Ukip. That's


the first I've heard. Jack Parsons, elected to award in Clacton. You


need to keep up. It is a strange move, isn't it, I suppose. Then


again, we had a Conservative councillor defect to us yesterday.


Ukip has to hold its nerve. This is, look... This will be a difficult


election. There's no doubt about that. You're not going to win any


seats? We may well win a couple. We're targeting sincebly. Focusing


our resources in terms of manpower, financial resources on a small


number of seats. You think two at most? Look, do you know, we could


get over the line in a number of seats this time round. Maybe our


vote share won't be as high as last but maybe we'll get over the line.


What I have to do is keep this party on the pitch. You just said, though,


that you are waiting for Theresa May to backslide. She won't keep to her


commitments in terms of the sort of Brexit you'd like to see. Why are


you telling large parts of the country to vote Tory? Well, we're


also telling people in certain seats to go out and vote Labour. Why are


you telling them to vote for a Tory Party you believe won't police


officer deliver? These are people who are true and real precious


tears. Theresa May never was. She wanted us to remain in the European


Union. You're asking your supporters to vote for her? There are specific


seats with specific sitting MPs where we'll stand aside to ensure we


get the Brexit we want. It is quite a moral thing to do, really. It is


about putting your country above your party. According to Professor


Stephen Fisher at Oxford Euan very it is, the scale of Ukip's collapse


will be an important factor in the scale of Theresa May's victory. Do


you accept that? I think our vote share will go down. There's no doubt


about that. We're contesting this election on a sticky wicket. Because


the Prime Minister's being believed at this present moment in time. If


there's a move between us and the Conservatives, you've already seen


that in the polls, it will play an important factor. We have to target


sensibly on a certain number of seats and try to get over the line.


Do you think you'll be the last leader of Ukip? No. Are you


finished? Yeah. Thank you. Now, not every politician can


command primetime on The One Show, or even a slot


on the Daily Politics. So, what have they been up to back


on the election trail? Here's Emma Vardy with


our campaign round-up. Tim Farron boarded


a resucue hovercraft as he launched the Liberal Democrats


campaign in Burnham-On-Sea. He was taken for a ride


in the Lib Dems former heartlands of the south-west where the party's


hoping to resurface. Today, the Liberal Democrats


are pledging to spend an extra Angela Rayner, are we talking


about 50 children, 5,000, Angela Rayner spoke to LBC


about Labour's promise ensuring no But when asked how many children


that would help, it appeared the Shadow Education Minister hadn't


done her homework on the figures. Go on then, if you've


got it, give it me. It's a substantial


number, go for it! Mysterious pair of legs


without a body, perhaps? Seems Labour's Kate Hoey, or one of


her team, attempted to Photoshop her Liberal Democrat rival George Turner


out of the picture only to make one of those digital altering


schoolboy errors. And, look who's campaigning


in the New Forest. Desmond Swain took Maggie


for a ride and a furry friend. These steak and haggis pies


were the product of an SNP campaign visit in East Dunbartonshire


with John Nicholson. After lanching Labour's campaign,


Jeremy Corbyn found solidarity in song with a busker


on the streets of Ashton-under-Lyne. # Darling, darling, stand by me #


Oh, stand by me # Oh stand.... Now, throughout the election


campaign, we're taking a look at some of the smaller parties


hoping to make gains Today we're looking at the Women's


Equality Party, who are currently The Women's Equality Party


was founded in 2015. They're calling for equality


in politics, business and executive They want to close the gender pay


gap, saying that women earn 52% They're calling for equal maternity


and paternity leave. And they want to see gender


stereotypes challenged We're joined now from Leeds


by their leader, Sophie Walker. Welcome to the Daily Politics.


Hello. What is it your pushing for that women in politics aren't


already tackling? We've women select committees, ministers, women's


issues are debated. Why aren't you backing the party that best


represents women's rights? Because we've much better policies and much


better candidates. Actually our whole system looks at it


differently. We're offering voters a better, different option. One that


flips politics on its head, if you like. What we do is we design a


system that works for the furthest first. If you look at the


experiences of the single biggest discriminated against group, women,


in all of our diversity, you create a political system and policies that


work better for everyone. Do you not think some of the existing politics,


we can name the leaders of the various parties at the moment, the


Prime Minister, Leanne Wood, Nicola Sturgeon, Caroline Lucas, they are


doing quite well in of themselves. Are they not promoting from within


the system the change you want? No, that's why we're here. We're


bringing new and fresh voices in our candidates. Many of whom have never


done politics before and are providing the interesting and


different backgrounds which would be so valuable in Westminster. But,


we're also looking really specifically and closely at how we


redesign, for example, investment in the economy. We will be prioritising


a look at how you invest in the social infrastructure of this


country. Time and time again, Chancellor after Chancellor stands


up and says here's a great idea to get the economy going. Let's invest


in physical infrastructure, housing, roads, bridges. What we're saying,


how about if we look at the other side of that? How about we invest in


free childcare? That would have a transformative impact on lives of


women right across this country. You'd increase your tax base. You


would decrees the number of out of work benefits. That would have a


knock on effect for everybody in a very positive way. We haven't time


to go through costing. In your manifesto you open with the line


nowhere in the world do women enjoy full equality. Do you really think


that the position of women in western liberal democracies can be


compared to the situation experienced by women around the


world in the way you've presented it there? First of all, that's not our


manifesto, it is our policy document we launched in 2015. Our manifesto


is coming shortly. You stand by that? Absolutely. This is a classic


case of what aboutry. We're not allowed to talk about women's


equality unless we start from somewhere else. Setting aside,


frankly, if you want a feminist approach to foreign policy you have


to have more fen Nices in Parliament, it is very clear when


you look at the statistics here in the UK, women don't have the same


options. They outnumber women by Two to one in Parliament. Women suffer


disproportionately from austerity mesh Ewings. They paid ?86 out of


every ?100 saved. Sophie, we're going to have to finish it there.


We've run out of time. There's just time before we go


to find out the answer to our quiz. Crime writer James Patterson has


joined forces with which political figure to write a thriller set


in the White House? The one o'clock news is starting


over on BBC One now. Jo and I will be


here at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories


of the day.


Download Subtitles