11/05/2017 Daily Politics

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.