11/05/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Afternoon, folks, and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Labour's draft general election manifesto has been leaked.


As the party's leadership meets to agree the final version,


how damaging is the leak and what does the document tell us


about Jeremy Corbyn's vision for Britain?


The Conservatives are promising to increase defence spending


for the next five years but senior retired military figures


say our armed forces face a funding crisis.


The Green Party is launching its environmental policy,


while the Liberal Democrats promise to take 50,000 more Syrian refugees.


We'll bring you all the latest from the campaign trail.


I've brought the Moodbox to the island of Anglesey to test


the Theresa May effect in this part of Wales.


When I say the name Theresa May, which words pop into your head?


All that in the next hour of this Daily Politics election special,


and I'm joined for all of it by the Plaid Cymru


Hopefully she's bought a photocopy of her party's manifesto so we can


So first today, Labour was meant to be approving its general election


manifesto at a meeting today ahead of its launch next week.


Unfortunately it's been launched for them, when the Telegraph,


Mirror and then the BBC obtained a copy of the 20,000-word,


Labour's shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, was asked


Do you know who leaked your manifesto? No, it is disappointing.


We are having a meeting. Do you recognise the policies?


Renationalising the railways? We have a democratic process in the


party and we will decide it and we will launch it on Tuesday. I have


got to catch my bus. Do you realise it is such a social manifesto?


Do you realise it is such a social manifesto?


The clause 5 meeting you heard him talking about is a gathering


of senior figures from around the Labour movement.


They have just started meeting to approve this manifesto,


The leaked manifesto includes plans to renationalise the railways,


parts of the energy industry and the Royal Mail.


It also says that a Labour government would scrap


university tuition fees, provide an extra ?6 billion a year


for the NHS and borrow ?250 billion for infrastructure spending.


The leaked manifesto says there will be no target


on immigration numbers and refuses to make false


And the Labour Party would rule out leaving


The document also pledges to bring in an immediate energy price cap


It includes plans to renew the Trident nuclear weapons


programme but makes it clear a Labour Prime Minister


would be extremely cautious about using the deterrent.


If the leaked document is correct, Labour will promise significant


increases in corporation tax and inheritance tax.


The voting age will be reduced to 16 and trade union rights


So that is just some of what is in it.


We will see what the final document looks like next Tuesday.


The clause five meeting may make some changes.


Now we are joined by the Sun's Tom Newton Dunn


and the Guardian's Anushka Asthana, a black mark for both


of them as neither of their papers had the leak.


What can I say? Does the leak matter? Is it embarrassing? I want


to correct you, we also had the leak. Perhaps a few minutes after


the others. We did not have it. It is embarrassing, it is clearly


embarrassing and everyone is trying to ask who leaked it, conspiracy


theories about whether it came from the leader's office or the Shadow


Cabinet or perhaps from union figures who were able to look at it.


So many people had the draft. Actually, people would say it was a


tight circle, but I believe they showed it to a number of union


liaison officials who had their iPhones out and started taking the


odd picture. We are talking about the Labour manifesto now, so maybe


it gets more publicity as a result of this. Is it a problem because


they are not controlling the discussion now? The glass half full


award of the year goes to Andrew Quinn this morning because he said


at least we are talking about labour today. This simply was not a


planned, sneaky PR operation for two good reasons. One is you lose all


control of your message and you allow rivals to brand back to the


1970s rather than forward and modernising which is what John


McDonnell would like. Second, you will always get your big for PR.


Landing this in a way that looks shambolic corresponds to all the


focus groups that the Tories were doing and the one word that always


comes back at the doorstep when asking about Jeremy Corbyn, one is


Marxist and the other one is a shambles. You are playing perfectly


into the opposition's narrative. People will be interested in some of


the policies and some of them on their own may be quite popular.


Focus groups may suggest others are unpopular. But when you go through


it, it is a relentless list of spending commitments. We are doing


this, tuition fees, 250 billion for infrastructure, 8 billion for social


care, 6 billion for the NHS, and on and on. If you are a party that has


a problem with tax and spend reputation, this does not resolve


it. I think you are right, that is one of the things they want to try


to show, this fiscal credibility rule, the day-to-day balancing.


There are a lot of spending commitments in there which are quite


eye watering. The 250 billion to be clear is money they would borrow in


order to invest in infrastructure. They have not set out all of their


tax plans, so we know they will reverse corporation tax and


inheritance tax. We know they will tax people who owed over 80 grand,


we do not know by how much. I think it is interesting that Tom said the


leak had suggested people would brand it as a 1970s manifesto.


However Labour had put this out, that might have been... It is


something the critics would always charge them with. You have to break


down what the offer is. One is who does not want to get rid of tuition


fees or free school meals for everybody? Then there is the


ideological big state taking back control. The problem with the retail


offer is, which everyone wants to vote for, if you can only get people


to vote for you if it is credible to deliver it and they think that. The


credibility problem is still Jeremy Corbyn's biggest headache. What do


you make of what you have seen? Well, I wonder how much of it


applies right across the entire British state. The Labour first


Minister in Wales has already distanced himself from this


manifesto. They are launching a different campaign in Wales,


recycling pledges that are already devolved that they promised ahead of


last year's assembly election. Some of the policies in this leaked


manifesto Labour in Wales have had an opportunity to implement those


policies and have chosen not to do so. Plaid Cymru has put down motions


to end zero hours contracts in the public sector several times and


Labour have voted us down. They have had an opportunity to create an


alternative public Royal Mail in Wales. We put a motion proposal to


them in 2013 for that and they have altered that. The same with rail


privatisation. The franchise for the Welsh rail system is coming up for


renewal in 2018 and all the companies bidding for that our


private sector companies. There is no Welsh public sector company in


the bidding. There are a range of missed opportunities as far as


Labour are concerned from a Welsh perspective. In terms of funding we


know about the corporation tax rise, although we do not know how much


that will raise. We know about the capital gains tax rise and that is a


much smaller sum, and we know about inheritance. But there is a lot in


the draft about major unfunded spending commitments. A lot now


seems to hang on by how much those earning more than ?80,000 a year


will pay more tax. Do you think they will tell us what it means all will


it stick with the formula that those who own more than ?50,000 will have


to pay more? Senior figures in the party say we will know what that


figure is, that is the one thing we will get when the manifesto is


launched. It feels it will have to be rather large. Only 3% of people


and that amount of money. 5%. 5% is the figure they say, but over 80 it


is less. The number is not the issue. The issue is how important


they have already become to the tax base. There are only 1.2 million of


them in this category, maybe 1.3, but they account for almost 50% of


all income tax receipts, so they are crucial to the tax base already. The


danger is if the burden gets bigger and bigger, you may not have them at


all. Everyone knows that behaviour is affected by tax rates and if


there is suddenly a whopping amount above 80,000, what will happen? We


will have to wait for those figures. Do you think we will get them? The


actual workings of what will happen to the 40% rate? Will there be a 50


or 60% rate? We will get the above 80 grand rate. I doubt they will get


into income tax thresholds which affect lower rate and middle rate


taxpayers will stop they have not said they will touch them? They have


said they will not move up the actual base rate and they have not


talked about thresholds. The Tories have talked about moving both


thresholds. The clause five meeting is just


getting under way. Let's have a look at what Len McCluskey had to say. A


number of the policies you will see formerly emerged today are really


exciting. The British electorate can only look at that rather than the


obsession that you people have about the leadership of the Labour Party.


I think we could have some interesting... An extra tax for high


wage earners? The overall policies that will emerge will be in favour


of ordinary working people and that is the key. Naturally we asked to


speak to the Labour Party this morning given the leak of the draft,


but we were told most of the significant figures were in the


clause five meeting and no one else could speak to us.


We are joined by the former communications strategy member for


the party. Is the leak embarrassing or irrelevant? Embarrassing, I do


not know who has done it and for what reason. There are three


different conspiracy theories. One is it was done by somebody to


undermine Jeremy Corbyn. Another it was done by somebody close to him to


make it look as if they were trying to undermine him and the third is


get it out now, so it is harder to roll back some of the wilder ideas.


We do not know whether this clause five committee will be that active.


Do you think there could be a lot of changes or will it have been


preagreed by and large and changes will be at the margins? Last time, I


can only speak for 2015, we introduced another page in the


manifesto after clause five which caused some consternation at the


time. What was in it? Our budget responsibility lock so everything


was costed. There may be something like that this time as well. What do


you make of it over or as a manifesto? Our match at the last


election was big reform, not big spending. There is some big spending


there. That said, properly funded social care, NHS and schools are


what Labour governments are about. It is what Tony Blair's government


was about. There is nothing here as extreme as leaving the single market


at any cost, bringing back grammar schools and nothing as dishonest as


promising to cut immigration when you know you cannot do it. There was


a labour leader who famously said that socialism was the language of


priorities. When you read the draft, it is a list of spending


commitments. It is not a list of priorities. We would like to do the


following, but we cannot afford to do it all in one parliament or


perhaps two, but this is what we will do. That is not in the draft.


We do not yet know how they plan to fund it or if they will set out


detailed funding plans. The most biggest problem is they seem to be


ducking and diving on Brexit and membership of the single market and


immigration. This is what this election is about. Theresa May is


seeking a massive, personal mandate to do whatever she wants on Brexit


and the Labour Party has a duty and an opportunity to hold her feet to


the fire and they are changing the subject.


But the draft manifesto has very little to say about numbers? It says


it is prioritising jobs and if that is the case, you prioritise the


single market ahead of getting rid of freedom of movement. But they


have given up with that idea. I think that is a mistake. Be seen to


be in opposition, mirror image of Theresa May's and the Labour


manifesto seems to be saying that a bad deal would be better than no


deal. I think the Labour Party is saying that if Theresa May comes up


with a bad deal, they are going to vote against it. No, no, this is a


manifesto for power, assuming that they will be doing the negotiations.


They say that if they are in that position, they will not contemplate


not doing a deal. There will not be a situation where they will do no


deal. So logically that means that you are prepared to accept a bad


deal rather than no deal. No, it means that you try very hard to get


a good deal. Theresa May's negotiating position is essentially,


if I do not get what I want, I will shoot myself. That is not a great


negotiating position. Isn't it? Don't you need the other side, and


Brussels are a master at negotiations, just look at Greece


who had to go through it all, don't you have to let them know that there


are some things on which you do not negotiate openly and have give and


take, we will walk away. Walking away from the table, unequal


negotiation, is not an option. If we walk away from the table, we go off


the cliff. It is a disaster for the economy and a disaster for our


country. We have to get a good deal and work with Europe so that both


sides think they get something out of this. At the moment it is being


done as he was going to win and who is going to lose. But a lot of what


is said now at the start of the negotiations will seem irrelevant in


a couple of months. And that is precisely the problem. This is why


it is so interesting. Theresa May is seeking a mandate to strengthen her


hand. When she does not want any scrutiny or debate about what her


plan is for Brexit. It is fundamentally dishonest. Labour's


reputation, which has been undermined in 2015, is that it is a


profligate party, a tax-and-spend party. And that it is into borrowing


too much as well. In what way does this manifesto counteract that


image? Well, we will have to see because it is a draft manifesto.


Someone said to me this morning it was a draft suicide note. I am


saying it is a draft manifesto. But we don't know who they are going to


play with us yet. We know that they are saying that everything will be


properly costed but your question is a fair question. Why are we


introducing that extra page of the manifesto? It was to counteract


that. And we earned credit for that, that very strict policy. And it is


ironic because the Tories went into the last election saying that the


only thing that mattered was clearing the deficit and balancing


the books. And now it doesn't matter. So when you talk about


credibility, we have to remember the Tories have promised a lot on


clearing the deficit and they have not done it. They have cut it, but


they have got nowhere near. They have promised that in both


elections. Putting aside the Welsh Labour Party, you are a socialist, I


think. Is not a lot of this which is attractive socialism for you? There


is no doubt that the cuts that we have seen to public services over


the last, well, since the banking crash in 2008 effectively, as


decimated public services in some places. They have stripped out


really valuable community assets in the communities that I represent, we


have lost libraries, play facilities for children. And you need to invest


in public services. So you would generally approve of this? It is not


my manifesto and I'm not defending it, because we will be publishing


our own manifesto. Why have you lot in the -- why have you not link to


your manifesto? We are a bit tighter on these things. The principle of


investment in public services and public sector workers is something


we can definitely support. Is this an election winning manifesto? We


will have to wait and see. Well, that is a definitive answer. I tell


you what, it may be a manifesto with one eye on a leadership contest


after the election rather than a general election. Explain what you


mean about that. Jeremy Corbyn's people seem to be going round and


the test of whether Jeremy Corbyn stays on now is whether he matches


Ed Miliband's percentage share of the vote. It is the wrong test. The


last leader of any major political party to stay on after an election


was Neil Kinnock and he cut the Tory majority by 40. If


Jeremy Corbyn does that, we are out of Parliament and of course he stays


on, but that is the minimum bar to reach. We seem to be operating on


the assumption that the Tories are going to win. I can read the polls


as well as anyone else can and you would be mad to say anything


different. Thank you very much for talking to us. We would have had no


one else to talk to about this if you had not come in. Emma Vardy is


outside Labour's meeting with more news. Our daily round-up of the rest


of today 's election campaign. Well, this is one of the key dates


in Labour's general election campaign, the meeting at which the


party signs off its policies to go into the manifesto. But of course


today it rather feels that the cat is out of the bag because of that


almighty leak last night. In the past hour, senior Labour Party


members have been arriving here. The meeting got underway about 20


minutes ago and is being chaired by Jeremy Corbyn. But the star


performer himself failed to turn up to an earlier engagement today. With


that and more, here is the campaign round-up.


Jeremy Corbyn pulled out of Labour's election poster launch this morning


after the party's draft manifesto was leaked to the press.


As the poster was unveiled on the South bank in London,


election coordinator Ian Lavery stepped in.


Mr Corbyn is doing the print work for a very important


meeting this afternoon, the clause five meeting.


Meanwhile, there was a ringing endorsement for Jeremy Corbyn


from what he thought was the grime artist Stormzy on the phone.


A prankster pretending to be the Corbyn supporter


rapper managed to be put through to the man himself.


Comedian Hayden Prowse was behind the joke.


They have campaigned for Cornwall every election since 1970,


but now the Cornish nationalists have said they will not


be putting forward any candidates this time around.


The party blamed the timing of the 2017 general election,


saying it was impractical to finance a meaningful campaign.


In the world of internet fandom, we've had the Beliebers,


and the news craze taking over is the Mayllennials.


Not all of them agree with her policies, but young women


who love Theresa May are sharing images of her on the net.


Fishing was a big issue in the referendum campaign.


And Ukip were keen to keep it on the agenda today.


We are an island nation and control of our waters has been


Setting out their aim to pull out of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy.


Some of the Labour heavyweights gave a few lively responses, I am told,


as they arrived here earlier and were pressed by the media scrum


about that leaked manifesto. Dave Anderson accused the media of


handling stolen goods, while Margaret Beckett, when she was asked


whether she was the one who leaked it, apparently responded by saying,


don't be ridiculous, I haven't bloody read it yet. I am told that


the Tory manifesto was being kept on a much tighter leash. Will it stay


that way? We will see. Thanks, Emma. We will see. Hopefully


that starts a trend that all the manifestos will be leaked and we


will have more to talk about. The Conservatives have this morning


pledged above inflation increases to defence spending in every year


of the next Parliament in order to meet a NATO commitment to spend


2% of GDP on defence. We are setting out in our manifesto


our spending for the NHS and schools and other important areas,


but the most important duty of all for any government


is to keep our country safe and that is why we are recommitting


today to the 2% target that Nato has set to a growing defence budget that


gives our armed forces the equipment Well we asked to speak to a defence


minister this morning, none was available, but I am joined


by the Conservative James Cleverly. Thank you for joining us. Michael


Fallon says that Jeremy Corbyn is essentially a pacifist and he would


make a dangerous leader, saying that the use of our Armed Forces would be


a last resort. What is wrong with military action being a last resort?


Well, it depends on your definition of what a last resort is. We have


already seen Jeremy Corbyn saying that he would be unwilling to use


defence technology like drone aircraft to take out the leader of


Isis. If you do not think that eradicating the leader of one of the


most violent death cults in the world is an action of last resort,


then I think we have a question about definition. But in general was


it not a wise position that we only commit military power, the lives of


our men and women in the military, as a last resort? Of course, but it


is about how you define what a last resort is? Again, we have questions


over Jeremy Corbyn's commitment to British soldiers actually using


deadly force in defence of themselves. If we have a national


leader that the British Armed Forces do not feel is going to back them


when they have to make difficult decisions, that puts them in a


difficult place. Well, I think in some ways he was misinterpreted what


he had said. But sending thousands and thousands of troops to invade


Iraq, as this country did in 2003, that is not a last resort. Well,


look, we can kick around the definitions... And Mr Corbyn was


against it. But the really important thing is... But you have said that


it matters, and is sending another 100,000 troops to Afghanistan in a


war that seems never-ending, 16 years the allies have been there, is


that a last resort? Well, this announcement today is not about the


decisions as to whether to deploy or not to deploy, it is about


reasserting our commitment to match our little promise, that's 2% of


GDP, and to increase defence spending by half a percent of


inflation until 2020. But we are about to send another hundred troops


to Afghanistan. Have we learned nothing in the past 16 years? 100


troops? What difference will that make in Afghanistan. British troops


are incredibly good and we have a fantastic track record. That is not


the issue. We have a track record of training local troops to defend


their own country and we are doing it in Afghanistan. We have done it


in a number of places. But the Afghanistan troops are taking


horrendous casualties at the moment and despite our training, and the


American training. And our training will help the local troops to reduce


their casualties. They haven't for 16 years and the casualties are


getting worse. Is that a last resort? Why are we doing this? Well,


because we have got to maintain our presence, a global presence round


the world. We have to support our allies when they are taking the


fight to international terrorism. That is a one standing commitment of


the British government and the British Armed Forces and I do not


think that any credible but it will party is putting a question mark


over that. The party boasts of meeting the 2% Nato commitment but


it is bit Dylan McGeouch that of a fiddle. It contains a lot of things


that have nothing to do with core defence spending. Well, the defence


Dylan McGeouch edition we use for 2% is the definition agreed by Nato and


seeing as it is a commitment to the British government has made to our


Armed Forces to the population, and most importantly to our Nato allies


is Nato are happy with the definition, then I am happy with the


definition. But it includes military pensions, which is a big


expenditure. How does that help? Well, if Nato are happy with the


definition, I am happy. And if you want to recruit and retain service


personnel, it is important that they know they will be looked after when


they retire. It is an important part of what the military prescribes as


the moral component. How big a hole is there in our defence spending


because the fall in the value of the pound since Brexit has made the


purchase of new aircraft carriers more expensive, the upgrading of


Apache helicopters, the new Trident missile defence, that is all going


up in price. Well, you will inevitably have cost increases when


you have currency fluctuations but these programmes are multi decade


programmes. And I have no doubt at all that at some point in the future


the value of the pound will increase and the relative costs will vary. So


over the lifetime costs of these equipmentss, these currencies will


be for trading. -- the lifetime costs of this equipment. You have


cut spending to the lowest since the Napoleonic Wars. Sir Richard


Sheriff, the Nato supreme commander since 2014, he says that he would


question whether the UK could deploy a division for war, a division. I


think that is highly unlikely, he says. That is quite a criticism of


your party's record. We could not deploy a division? We are spending


35 or ?36 billion a year on defence and we could not deploy a division?


Well, I am not going to agree with those estimations. I do not


criticise various people for making their own assessments but we have


seen a significant investment in cutting-edge technology. Apache


helicopters, Ajax... But it is not much use if you do not have the


people to go into the battlefield. Numbers are important, of course


they are, but in an increasingly sophisticated technology driven


battle space, raw numbers are not always the most important metric and


making sure that our Armed Forces, on sea, land or a, have got the


absolute cutting-edge equipment is really important. And we are


maintaining our equipment programme. Land or air. Would you support 2%


GDP on defence? I think the priority within defence spending is wrong. I


think I see no sense in committing ?200 billion to replacing Trident,


for example, when there are soldiers without basic equipment, when we


have people coming out of the Armed Forces with poor access to mental


health programmes and so on. But would you take any savings from


Trident? It is only about 3% of our defence spending. Would you spend it


outside defence? Some would go to redeploying in the defence budget.


We need to put more emphasis on intelligence and think about the


kind of threat we face today which are different to what they were 20


years ago. Have we not have a massive increase in the intelligence


budget in the last five years? We cannot take our eye off the ball.


They are recruiting hundreds of people. What I am saying is


priorities are wrong and to invest in nuclear weapons systems that very


few leaders would actually use, I cannot envisage the circumstances


under which anyone would actually press that button, why would we even


consider spending ?200 billion on that when there are other things? I


mentioned earlier about public services. There are many things that


need investment and I do not think that is one of them. Michael Fallon


also said, this is the final question, that he attacked Labour


when they said they would stop sending arms to the Saudis until


they can prove they are willing and able to comply with international,


humanitarian law. The government said it would continue to send


weapons to Saudi Arabia. What is wrong with trying to find out if


they are complying with international, humanitarian law? The


principle is the same principle you would have in any circumstances like


this. You cannot pre-empt the outcome of a review like that. I


think Saudi Arabia are, and have been for a long time an incredibly


important regional ally. They have been at the forefront of the fight


against terrorism. The intelligence we share with them has kept British


people save both in Saudi Arabia and around the world. You do not have a


review on whether they are complying with international, humanitarian


law. You just sell them regardless. The relationship Britain has with


Saudi Arabia is a long-standing one. But their humanitarian record does


not match it. Do not put words in my mouth. I am not. I am saying we have


a close, honest and straight talking relationship with the Saudis.


Concerns are raised and conversations are had at the most


senior level. But to try and smear a close, long-standing regional ally


like this is childish. Why is asking for a review of their compliance on


humanitarian issues a smear? What was being said by the Labour Party


is we are going to unilaterally withdraw defence cooperation with


the Saudis if they can prove something. That is a very childish


policy. The Green Party have been


launching their environment manifesto this morning,


that's pretty important for a party It includes a promise to end


the dominance of the "big six" energy companies by creating


locally-owned competitors, and they'd create a bottle


deposit scheme to stop them The word environment has hardly even


been mentioned in this It has been conspicuous


by its absence. We are here this morning to put


that right and to say that the Green Party will continue


to put a healthy, thriving environment at the heart


of all of our policies at the heart So that's the Green Party's


policy announcement today, And we invited them on the show


to discuss it, but they declined. But if you were watching yesterday's


show you'll have seen we interviewed the party's co-leader Caroline Lucas


about her plans for a so-called "progressive alliance" and I asked


her about reports her party had been offered ?250,000 by a mystery donor


not to stand. I don't know the name of the person,


I know of the incident you are talking about,


but it happened after the decision had already been taken to stand down


and the money was not accepted. Any kind of implication


that we were standing down in order for money is absolutely


wrong, categorically wrong. It happened after the decision


was taken and the money I believe so, I didn't


speak to them directly, But as joint leader of the party


if somebody offers you ?250,000 I don't remember the name,


I've heard the name, but the point was it went


through our ethical checks, it did not pass our ethical checks,


the money was not accepted. Caroline Lucas yesterday


on this programme. So as I said the Green Party didn't


want to come on to tell us if they've remembered the name


of this mystery donor yet, but were told they didn't


want to discuss it any further. They said instead: "No donation


was either made or accepted on the basis that we stand down


in Richmond Park. All donations offered


to the Green Party have to be scrutinised by our ethical criteria


and all those accepted can be found on the Electoral


Commission website." Now, the Daily Politics moodbox


could be coming to a town near you, because it's on tour


during the election campaign. Yes, we are in Wales and we are in


Holyhead on the island of Anglesey. Over my shoulder is where the


lorries line-up to get the ferry to Ireland. This constituency has been


held by Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and most recently by


Labour. When we were in Derby the other day and asking people about


the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, here we are asking about the


Conservative leader and the Prime Minister Theresa May. We were asking


that she make people more likely to vote Conservative and does it make a


difference? And we have gone bilingual. We have got the box in


We have got the box in Welsh as well.


Because I think she'll do a lot for the country.


Sir, sir, what do you think about Theresa May?


She seems to be very unflappable, she's not easily swayed.


She doesn't seem a person who will be pushed to making a decision


To be honest with you, I've not taken notice of it.


You've not taken notice of Theresa May?


Do you not care who the Prime Minister is?


When I say the name Theresa May, what words pop into your head?


Does she make you think of the words 'strong' and 'stable'?


Theresa Maybe, she has got no - she changes like a weather


The price of food is rocketing at the moment.


And do you think Theresa May could get a better deal?


Being a single mum of two kids, working is hard work, so yeah.


Do you think Theresa May is going to stand up for you?


She's the only person who can, isn't she, at the moment?


Well, it's totally unscientific of course but this result suggests


that Theresa Mania might be limited in this part of Wales


and no, I don't know how to say that in Welsh.


And we are joined by the former Welsh Secretary Stephen Crabb and


Leanne Wood is here with us in the studio. You described the Tories as


toxic and irrelevant in Wales. The latest YouGov, ITV, Cardiff


University poll, taken up to made seven, has them with four times the


support of your party. Last Thursday in the local elections Plaid Cymru


one 220 council seats to the Conservative' 184 and in terms of


the council elections we have beaten them. We came within just four seeds


of getting our best ever council election results last week which


puts us in a good position to contest the next election. It is all


about defending Wales now as far as we are concerned. That is a fair


point, because you came third in Wales in the local elections, so


maybe the general election will not be as good for you as the polls


suggest. We keep saying we should not read from local election results


and read across to make general election predictions. Leanne Wood


used all of the same lines she is using today does years ago at the


election in 2015 and described the Tories as toxic in Wales and we made


big gains at that general election, going from eight to 11 seats. Plaid


Cymru were stuck on three. Let's see how the next month plays out and


let's see what the results will be in Wales on the 8th of June. You


have accused the Tories of planning a power grab against Wales. What is


the evidence they will grab power is back? In the Great Repeal Bill,


Klaus 4.2, talks about the powers in Brussels currently which have


devolved competence, going back straight to Westminster, not


Cardiff. Matters that are currently under the competence of the national


assembly for Wales, if the Tories have their way, they will be taken


back to London. You do not have these powers, these powers are with


Brussels and under the repeal Bill they will go to London. The repeal


Bill does not take powers from Cardiff to London. We are talking


about areas of devolved competence like agriculture. Why would that


change? They may pass on the powers, Westminster may just be a shunting


ground and they may pass them from Brussels to London to Cardiff. We


have recently had a Wales Bill which lists all those matters that are


reserved to Westminster and that is rolling back on some of the powers


that the National Assembly has. We need to strengthen our national


assembly. Are you planning a power grab? This is a nonsense discussion.


Theresa May and her teams have made clear that the areas of policy that


are now the responsibility of the Welsh government in Cardiff will be


respected. We need to think about the frameworks that are currently


held at brussels level, like farm support payments and other EU wide


competences. How would translate that back into the UK now that we


are taking back control by leaving the European Union. But nobody is


talking about somehow trying to remove powers or competencies from


Wales. Only Plaid Cymru are saying this. That is not true. They are a


Welsh nationalist party and they are desperate for things to hang their


rhetoric on. On the day after the referendum, the decision to leave


the European Union, the leader of Plaid Cymru in Wales said he would


not be surprised if the referendum we won in 1997 to establish the


National Assembly would have a different vote in the light of the


decision to leave the European Union. That gives us an idea of the


kind of thinking that is going on. Are you saying the Tories want to


close the assembly down? Some would go there if they had an opportunity.


They were against setting up the assembly when we had the referendum


in 1997. They have come on board because they are benefiting out of


it. I would not be surprised, especially if we see more Ukip tide


is going to the Conservative Party and they become even further to the


right. What do you say to that? We have just passed a law in Parliament


which I helped write which enshrines and recognises the permanency of


devolved government in Wales and the plays of the Welsh assembly. Listen


to who is saying this, I Welsh nationalist party that is desperate


to find things to hang their rhetoric on in the general election


where everybody in Wales on the doorstep is talking about the big


United Kingdom issues. That is why they are looking for leadership in


some unlike Theresa May. If not a power grab, what about money grab?


The EU funding to Wales is about ?680 million coming from Brussels.


We sent some of it out and it gets circulated back, but it goes from


the EU to Wales, 680 million is a lot for a small economy. How will


that be replaced? This is what we call structural


funding. The purpose of the funds was to raise economic growth in


Wales to the UK national level. We have had a lot of money from the EU


over the last 15 years and a lot of it has been badly spent by Welsh


Labour in Cardiff which is why the Welsh economy continues to rumble


along at the bottom of the UK league table. We have an opportunity with


Brexit to ask ourselves how we use this kind of funding in future. I


have to say I absolutely believe that when we come out of the EU, the


UK Government will need to look at something that replicates of those


kind of structural funds. But we have to do it in a smarter way and


be serious about using it to develop a UK wide industrial strategy, raise


levels of productivity in Wales. That is the only way we will get


better jobs that pay better wages and raise living standards for all


people in Wales. What do you say about that? Well, they have no plan,


they have no guarantees for the money we could lose. Wales has been


ignored, neglected, since the decision to leave the European


Union. It is vital that we have a strong team of Plaid Cymru MPs to


defend the Welsh national interests and to defend the people in Wales


against the Tories. I am concerned that the Tories with an increased


mandate will wreck havoc on peoples lives. We are not -- they are not


pro public service, they will carry on cutting public service


infrastructure and public assets and I think we have to defend people in


Wales from the worst of what they can throw at us. But what difference


would a couple of Plaid Cymru MPs make to that? The SNP is have 56 out


of 59 seats and they did little to rein in the Conservative government.


What difference would it make. You only have three, maybe you will end


up with two or four. What difference could it make? It is clear to me


that Theresa May is speaking for English nationalism. We have a party


in Scotland speaking for Scotland and there is no one at the moment


speaking for Wales. Only Plaid Cymru will do that. Nobody has any


question about our ability to do that. People trust and understand


that Plaid Cymru will stand up for Wales. I used to the party of


English nationalism? The days that people used to say the Conservative


Party were somehow the English party in Wales, that was never true. Those


days are long gone. We now have a good team in the Welsh Assembly in


Cardiff and a good team of Welsh Conservative members of Parliament


at Westminster. Lacazette previously, 11 MPs compared to Plaid


Cymru's three. We are in a position where if what we're hearing on the


doorsteps is to believe he might be believed, we can look forward to


making some games in this general election. -- if what we're hearing


on the doorsteps to be believed. We're looking to stand up for Welsh


interests as part of the UK Government, taking the Britain we're


looking to stand up for Welsh interests as part of the UK


Government, taking the Britain country out of the EU -- taking the


country out of the EU. We will leave it there. We will know how things go


in Wales on the morning after June the 8th.


Now, the Liberal Democrats have today announced they would allow


Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader said the estimated ?4.3 billion cost


of the initiative would be paid back over time by the taxes and hard work


Mr Farron also criticised the government for the "pitiful"


number of refugees it currently accepts.


Britain can either turn its back on those refugees, Theresa May


ending the Dubs Amendment which means we are now


turning our back on orphaned children in camps fleeing


from Syria, and I just say what kind of Britain do you want to grow up


in or do you want your children to grow up in?


I want my Britain, the Britain I'm proud of to be outward looking,


decent and to create a decent life for others.


This is being true to Britain's character.


What did Britain do after the Second World War?


It opened its doors to those desperate children fleeing


We're joined now by the Liberal Democrat, Tom Brake.


So 50,000 Syrian refugees resettled from the camps. You have to fund it


upfront. ?4.3 billion. Where will the money come from? Well, as Tim


Farron set out, and we will be sitting out in our manifesto, which


is fully costed, we will explain where that funding is going to come


from. Can you do it this morning? You have announced the policy so why


not tell us how he will pay for it? I think the details of costings will


be in our manifesto for people to see next week. We know what it costs


at the moment to support a refugee and we know how many the UK


Government have taken so we can extrapolate the costs from that. The


arguments you have given us is the costs, but I am asking how you will


pay for it. Where will the money come from? As Timm has set out, we


will ensure that it is properly funded. But how can we know that if


you will not tell us? I am telling you that it is going to be in our


costed manifesto. Why announce a policy like this? You have given us


the figure, 50,000 Syrian refugees. You have given us the cost, and yet


you cannot tell us the crucial bit, how you were going to pay for it?


Because what we will do in our costed manifesto is we will be


setting out the casting for all the proposals that we have got so it


comes as a complete package. And therefore the sources of funding for


it may well apply to other things that we are supporting. Another


penny on income tax? That would pay for it, that would give you it. We


have set out how that would be using terms of funding the NHS. Where


would the refugees go? We have already seen local authorities


willing to take refugees. There are many willing to provide more


support. Clearly we would want to work with those local authorities to


provide additional places. If you look at the scale of what we are


proposing in terms of 50,000 in comparison with some of the


countries in the region like Turkey which have taken 4 million, I think


this is a relatively small contribution that the UK would be


making. How many has your own borough of Sutton taken in terms of


asylum seekers? As I understand it, we have taken over 20 young people


as part of this process. The figure I've his format. It is your area. --


the figure I've got is format. The figure I have is higher. Sutton is


one of the most prosperous part of the country and you have taken four.


Let's take the 20 instead, Salford, not the richest part in the country,


728. Stockton on Tees, historically an area of high unemployment and


industrial decline, 850. I get a prosperous area like yours manages


four or 20. -- and yet a prosperous area like yours manages. Sutton is a


prosperous area and there has been an attempt to get a pan London


initiative set up, and it is through that process that Sutton has


received refugees and we will continue to support young people in


particular. But so far, you have not. What will change? You are


talking about 50000 and all your borough can manages 20 on your


figures. 50,000 over the term of a parliament, that is five years, that


is 10,000 a year. That would be spread over literally hundreds of


authorities. Each authority will only have to take a relatively small


number of refugees each year. How come they tend to end up in the


poorer parts of the country? Indeed, those parts of the country least


equipped to welcome them. That may be down to the government's policy


of relocating asylum seekers in the specific places where they tend to


focus refugees or asylum seekers in a relatively little limited number


of locations. Do you think -- what do you think of 50,000 refugees? It


is a humanitarian disaster and we are not sticking our fair share of


the responsibility at present so more needs to be done. The 20,000


figure that they committed to has not been met, has it? So I do not


think it is fair that those countries surrounding Syria, which


in many cases are poor countries, take the biggest share of the


burden. We will leave it there. Now, in the run up to


the General Election we've been taking a look at some of the smaller


parties hoping to win seats. Today it's the turn


of the Pirate Party UK. They're fielding ten candidates,


and I know Leanne was bitterly disappointed to learn they've got


nothing to do with eye-patches, The Pirate Party UK was founded


in 2009, and says it has the UK's Some of their policies include:


lowering copyright duration Protecting the right to protest,


including withholding labour. On privacy they oppose the so-called


"Snooper's Charter" and would see And they have policies


on free speech including protecting all whistleblowers


and reforming libel laws. We're joined in the studio


now by Mark Chapman, Welcome to the programme. If you are


a journalist, reforming the whistle-blowing was and libel was


definitely has its attractions. But would you not be better trying to


push these through mainstream parties to get them to adopt them,


rather than building a party around something like that yourself? Well,


that is an allegation you could make against old minor parties. We


believe that we have a unique perspective on free speech,


whistle-blowing and justice, but on wider things as well. We are party


of freedom in all areas. We believe that people need to be free online


as well as offline. We believe that people need to be able to


communicate with one another without the government stepping on them,


without them being able to read your e-mails. And do you think that is


getting worse? Absolutely. We have seen with Theresa May as Home


Secretary and Amber Rudd now, that looking to put in a back door to


encryption, for example, is something that is akin to putting a


key under your front door step. And I can understand the attraction of


that. There have been cases were some of this has been misused.


Journalists have been on the wrong end of it, not the hacking stuff,


that is different, but trying to track down sources and so on, using


what you are talking about. It is a harder argument, isn't it, when the


war on terror, so-called, has become overwhelmingly a war of the


intelligence services against those opposed to them. Absolutely. There


is a real need in politics in Westminster for people who


understand digital, who understand technology, who know exactly how


this stuff works because we are really lacking in any politicians


that have that background, that have that knowledge. You think the


political classes do not quite understand the invocations of


digital technology? They do not at all. And with regards to your


comment about mass surveillance and the war on terror we think that


money would be far better spent on targeted surveillance. It is no use


adding more hay to the haystack if you are looking for a needle. Does


that have an attraction to you? Yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. I


wanted to point out, you said you were the first party to crowd source


your manifesto, I want to put on the record that Plaid Cymru crowd


sourced our manifesto for the assembly elections last year. We had


an online engagement. So that you could leak the manifesto online now?


I would like to hope that we are... Our first manifesto was back in


2010, so to be fair... Are you finding any traction among


voters? We are. It is a tough one out there. It initially seems daft


but when you speak to people and get them to realise that digital rights,


the importance of technology affects every area of our lives, it affects


children in our schools. What are our children learning about how to


use technology? My 18-month-old already knows to swipe when he picks


up a phone by default. We need our children to understand technology,


that they can use it for good, so that we can really understand how to


make society work in the future instead of being afraid of the past.


And how many seats are you standing in? Ten. We thank you for coming on


to explain. There was a famous Pirate Party in Sweden and they did


quite well. We are hoping to build on their success. That's it for


today. Thank you for all our guests. The Wonnacott uses beginning now on


BBC One and I will be joined by Michael Portillo, Liz Kendall, Kevin


Maguire, David Baddiel and Douglas Murray. That is straight after


Question Time, BBC One, 11:45pm. Bye-bye. -- the one o'clock news is


beginning now. The race is on to complete


London's most ambitious railway.


Download Subtitles