Andrew Neil is joined by Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood. They look at the leaked Labour manifesto and the Conservatives' announcements on defence spending.
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.
Andrew Neil is joined by Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood. They look at the leaked Labour manifesto and the Conservatives' announcements on defence spending. Plus a round-up of all the latest campaign news.