12/05/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Jeremy Corbyn declares he's not a pacifist as he pledges a robust,

independent foreign policy and "no hand-holding" with US

President Trump lays into the former director of the FBI,

saying he's a showboat and a grandstander, as he attempts

to close down the row over his sacking of James Comey.

The opinion polls failed to predict David Cameron's general

So can we trust the polls this time around?

And how will Brexit Britain fare in tomorrow's Eurovision

And with us for the whole of the programme today, the Guardian

And Christian May, editor of City AM.

Let's kick off with the news overnight from Washington -

that Donald Trump has described the former director of the FBI

whom he fired earlier this week as a "showboat"

In an interview with NBC News, President Trump also said

-- talked about his reasons for firing James Comey.

But regardless of recommendation I was going to fire Comey, knowing

And, in fact, when I decided to just do

it, I said to myself, I said, you know, this Russia thing

with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it is

an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election.

He is a showboat, he is a grandstander. The FBI has been in

turmoil. Everybody knows that. I know I am not under investigation,

me, personally. I am not talking about campaigns or anything else. I

am not under investigation. Polly Toynbee, your first impressions of

that interview? You always think you cannot be more shocked by Trump and

then you are and what he has done is utterly astounding. He has sacked

everybody involved in investigating the Russian links with his campaign.

This sacking is utterly disgraceful and extraordinary. He has given

different reasons why. In the first place, it was the investigation into

Hillary Clinton and now he said it is this Trump, Russia thing. What

worries you about the interview? Polly said, he has changed the story

for the reasons of sacking James Comey. He has admitted that he had

dinner and conversations with James Comey where he asked the FBI

director was he under investigation, which is certainly unethical, if not

illegal. There are fresh questions about conversations he had with

James Comey but it is too early to say what lies at the root of this is

a conspiracy or incompetence. It is difficult to tell with Trump which

of those factors is the great motivator. It could be he is erratic

and unpredictable. If he fired the head of the FBI because he felt he

was getting too close to him, it is extraordinary to assume it would put

the issue away. That is the question, it will not end the row.

How does he get himself, extricate himself from this situation? It

depends whether the investigation continues and what it turns up with.

I was in Washington reporting, my earlier jobs, at the time of

Watergate when Archibald Cox was sacked by Nixon and it feels like

that, the act of someone desperate and desperately investigation should

not continue. If he has nothing to hide, let it continue. Although it

fits with the pattern of being unpredictable, of being erratic, of

changing his mind, and of course he still denies he has any direct

dealings, properties in Russia. We'll bat continued to hold, that

line? And Washington, is it really from this? Will they come after

Trump over this? I think a lot of people are. His critics, of which

there are many, are determined to draw the Watergate comparison. It

was fun to note the president Nixon library saying Nixon never fired the

head of the FBI. This will run and run. Whether there will be fresh

earrings, legal action taken against the president or those around him

depends. Trump obviously feels he is insulated. He must feel that. He has

that confidence. Whether it is misplaced... Whether you put it down

to his personality or whether he thinks there is nothing here, it is

politically motivated. I think he is insulated by his support base and

they will believe anything he says, he says fake news and a ground swell

of people who voted for him will back him, whatever he says, even if

he says one thing one day and be opposite the next. Extraordinary.

That is true of popular support, but it might not hold in Washington.

What he calls the swamp. The question for today

is how much is the general At the end of the show we will see

if Polly and Christian can work out the numbers and perhaps we will do a

whip round and see if they will donate.

Jeremy Corbyn has been giving a speech setting out his views

The Labour leader is a former chairman of the Stop The War

But today, he's been explaining the circumstances

in which he would countenance military action.

In his speech, Jeremy Corbyn declared, "I am not a pacifist."

He argued that military force can be justified if it's used

as a genuine last resort and in compliance

He also took aim at the foreign policy of recent years.

He said the war on terror has failed.

And he said that the "bomb first, talk later" approach to security

Jeremy Corbyn turned his guns on both Theresa May and Donald Trump.

He said there will be no more hand-holding with Donald Trump

And the UK will pursue an independent foreign policy.

But the Conservatives have responded to Mr Corbyn's speech,

saying that the Labour leader has "spent a lifetime trying

Jeremy Corbyn has been giving his speech at the Chatham House think

tank. The War on terror has been driven, which has driven these

interventions has not succeeded. It has not increased security at home,

in fact many would say just the opposite. It has caused

destabilisation and devastation abroad and last September, the House

of Commons foreign affairs Select Committee published a report on the

Libyan war, which David Cameron promoted. They concluded the

intervention led to political and economic collapse, humanitarian and

migrant crises and fuelled the rise of Isis in Africa and the Middle

East. Jeremy Corbyn. We have been joined from Leeds.

for Peace and Disarmament, Fabian Hamilton.

Jeremy Corbyn said he would do everything necessary to protect this

country. What does that mean? It means not leaving the country

defenceless and ensuring the Armed Forces are properly supplied and

armed bandit mean spending the 2% we are committed to through Nato on the

armed services and events. Defence of this country is safe with the

Labour Party and always has been and always will be. What about a strike

against the leader of so-called Islamic State? Jeremy Corbyn was

asked if he would authorise such a strike if the British security

forces got that intelligence and he did not answer the question. Would

that be necessary to protect the country in your mind? It is a

theoretical situation and it is hard to say unless you are faced with

intelligence and facts. It is all very well asking if you would do

this in the circumstances but nobody knows the circumstances and it is

impossible to answer. If he is saying a Labour government would do

everything to protect the UK in Britain, is a member of Isis in

Syria was planning a terrorist act on the streets of this country,

would Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn authorise a strike on that

individual? It is not that unrealistic. I cannot answer that

question. Why not? Because I do not know the circumstances or

intelligence but I cannot see why Jeremy Corbyn would react in any

other way to any other Prime Minister Labour or Conservative

given the threat. He would do what David Cameron did in that situation?

Could you repeat the question? A Prime Minister Corbyn would do the

same as David Cameron did when he reported the drone strike that

killed high-level people in Isis. Why are we talking about these

theoretical issues? We have no idea what the circumstances may be, what

the intelligence would show, what the military advice would be given

to the Prime Minister of the day. Jeremy Corbyn along with every

member of the Labour Party and MP holds the defence of this country as

a highest possible priority and we will do everything to defend the

people of Great Britain. People want to be able to trust a future Labour

government that they would do the sorts of things people would

consider necessary to protect this country. Jeremy Corbyn criticised

what he called unilateral military action which he said has become

almost routine. Explain, does that mean a future Labour government

would always need for UN backing for any military action? It depends on

the circumstances. We are a member of Nato and know the Nato treaty

means an attack on one is an attack on all and I would not have thought

if one member was attacked and the treaty was invoked we would

necessarily go to the UN, it depends on the circumstances. The defence of

the country is a priority for any party who wants to hold power and

any government elected to power. If you criticise unilateral action, the

logic of the argument says Britain would not be prepared to take

military action, even if the UK was under threat in the unilateral way,

and by leaving that not clear, does that give someone like Vladimir

Putin a veto on the UK's foreign policy? Russia is a permanent member

of the UN Security Council, it does not respect our veto in Syria for

example, are you saying we should always respect there is? We should

not embark on the kind of approach in the past, that Jeremy quite

rightly says means dropping the bombs first and asking questions

later. Innocent people have been killed as a result of some of these

strikes and conflicts and that is something we want to avoid. If we

can see a conflict coming we need to do everything through international

forums including the UN and Nato to de-escalate the situation and stop

the conflict happening in the first place. Do you think talking and

using the vehicle of the UN has de-escalated the Syrian crisis? It

hasn't, but the UN has an important role there and the problem with

Syria, the crisis is so complicated it is almost impossible to pick it

apart but the only solution will be through the United Nations. I cannot

see any other solution unless Turkey, Iran, Russia find a

conclusion between Syria and the Isis factions and other warlords.

You can only see the UN as a viable channel, as you say, to direct

foreign policy or military intervention, but what about

humanitarian intervention? You remember Tony Blair intervened to

stop Slobodan Milosevic to attacking civilians in Kosovo without the

backing of the UN. With Jeremy Corbyn do it for humanitarian

reasons I smirk I think this country has a good record in humanitarian

interventions and provided parliament is consulted and approved

it, I see no reason why we should not take those interventions on if

it is for humanitarian purposes to save lives. We are good at doing

this had we have shown an example to other countries. Is Jeremy Corbyn

saying today what he personally thinks, or is he saying what he

feels he needs to save from a collective point of view for the

Labour Party? He seems to have changed his mind on Nato and defence

spending. Join every campaign, fight all the cuts except those in the

Armed Forces where we want to see a fume or cuts taking place and no

more nuclear weapons. Nato was founded to promote a Cold War with

the Soviet Union. That resulted in the formation of the Warsaw Pact.

Come the end of the Cold War in 1990, that should have been the time

for Nato to shut up shop, give up, go home and go away.

So, does Jeremy Corbyn still think that Nato should shut up and go

away? He wasn't the leader of the Labour Party when he said that. He

is now the leader of a large party that makes its decisions

collectively. So has he changed his mind, or does he still hold that

view but he has either been forced or converted himself to thinking

that that is not the right policy to represent the Labour Party. He may

well have changed his mind, he may well still hold the same views. You

don't know? Of course I don't know, but what is very clear is that when

you are the leader of a political party, you have to go along with the

democratic decision and the collective view, and the collective

view is that we support Nato and we support remaining a member of Nato,

and that is what Jeremy Ayre is promoting. I have my own particular

views about disarmament and nuclear weapons, but we accept the

democratic decision and we will carry it out. But there are some

decisions that only a Prime Minister can make, and if you are putting

yourself forward to be a Prime Minister, your personal views are

important because it goes to the heart of your personal credibility

when you are standing in front of voters. 2014, three years ago,

Corbyn saying very passionately that Nato should shut up shop, and saying

that the only cuts that he would support would be cut to the Armed

Forces, a direct contradiction of what you are saying in your

manifesto. Are we really saying that when somebody says something three

years ago, they are not entitled to change their mind given how very

huge change Jeremy bowl smack role is now -- Jeremy's role is now... So

in the last three years he has had a radical change of heart having held

those views all his life? Of course he has, because he never had the

prospect of being the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and now that

prospect is within view so you have to change your mind and take a much

broader view of what your role now is. But you did say you one sure

whether he had changed is my door was doing it the democratic will of

the Labour Party. Will people believe what you are saying? Will

people trust that if he became prime Estep he would hold to those

policies in the manifesto, or would he under a copper hence it Strategic

Defence Review try and go back to the policies that he actually

believes? Jeremy Irons a Democrat like all of us, and he will go along

with the democratic view of the Labour Party. There are decisions

made in the seclusion of 10 Downing Street, but they are made with a

whole lot of advisers, advice about the common good, the defence of the

realm, the important issues that a Prime Minister must deal with, and

it seems to me that you are trying to personalise this into the persona

of Jeremy Corbyn. But he wants to be Prime Minister, that is fair. But

you have to see that his views will be different than when he was a

backbencher was speaking for himself and his constituents alone, and that

is a different point of view tour party leader aspiring to be the

leader of this country. Your reaction on that, that goes to the

very heart of the matter. Can people trust Jeremy Corbyn and what he is

saying today as Labour leader and a future Prime Minister in this

election campaign, or will they refer to the views that he has held

over the last 30 years or so in parliament? It is a difficult line

to hold, that line between what he has been saying passionately for 30

years on the position he has now been forced to adopt as he leads a

political party. The public will rightly look at 30 years of speeches

and 30 years, decades of dubious association with people who have

made this country harm, one only has to think about his quite vocal

support for the bombs and the bullets of the IRA, a time when he

clearly felt that the military action or armed action was justified

in that conflict, so he can make a speech today at the head of a

general election in which he seeks to reassure people that he does wish

to protect the country, but if you have spent 30 years positioning

yourself on the other side of that argument, people will rightly

question your sincerity. Do you think this is a difficult area for

Jeremy Corbyn to appear authentic? He has always said, I stand by the

principles I have always held. It is difficult, but what he said today

would actually be very popular if it weren't him say it. Almost

everything he has said, people would agree with. They don't want to be

close to Trump, they don't want any more involvement with the Middle

East, they do regard it as having been a disaster, they don't see

solutions in Syria or any reason why us adding a few bombs is going to

solve that intractable problem. Unfortunately because of his back

story and the clips you have shown, people weren't trusted coming from

him. Like a labour's manifesto, nothing in there that would be

unpopular. Before we go onto the front pages of the papers, do we

know anything more about Theresa May's foreign policy? As Polly

Toynbee said, cuddling up, as people see it, to Trump, will not be a

popular image with British voters. In my view the special relationship

is special because it endures no matter who is in office on either

side of the Atlantic, so I don't think she was wrong to go to

Washington. She might regret the fact that Trump grabbed her hand,

but I imagine there were Tory cheers were Jeremy Corbyn says he will talk

about defence policy in the election campaign... Former military leaders

have criticised Theresa May for saying that this 2% of GDP de being

spent on our defences is accounting deceit. There is a roe going on that

is more important. We all know what Jeremy Corbyn thinks about defence,

it is the one thing that everybody knows. But there is a big argument

going on, the military of defence -- the Ministry of Defence is

overspending dramatically, and they want a new strategic review. He says

he doesn't want one because he knows it will uncover the extent to which

they are in bad trouble, that is the more important story.

Let's see how some of today's papers covered Labour's manifesto launch.

Christian's newspaper City AM says "Never mind the '70s,

Corbyn will take us back to the 1940s", referring

to the level of state intervention promised in the manifesto.

Polly's paper, the Guardian, has a picture of Jeremy Corbyn

on the front page and calls it a radical manifesto,

which the Labour leader says will transform lives.

The Times claims the manifesto has promoted an internal wcivil

And it also has a picture of our colleague Giles Wooltorton,

the BBC cameraman whose foot was run over by Mr Corbyn's car yesterday.

And The Sun also has a picture of Giles on its front page, alongside

a picture of Unite boss Len McCluskey taking

The headline is "crash, bang, wallies", claiming

that the manifesto launch is a "shambles".

In a way, Labour has a point about members or parts of the press who

have just got it in for him no matter what he says. Most of the

printed press in this country is sceptical if not hostile to some of

the positions he has advocated. But they would be whatever he said. 85%

of the press is always against Labour. The reference to the 1940s

was from Paul Johnson of the ISS, and nobody can accuse him of being

always against Labour, that is one of the most impartial institutions

in the country. His argument was that the policies outlined in the

manifesto are so radical they would transform the role of the state in

so many areas of people's lives, and lead to such extraordinary levels of

state spending, they really ought to be questioned. Nothing in the

manifesto would be unpopular, you said, there are things that would be

unpopular, but you are right, time and again whether an nationalising

rail, zero hours contracts, banning fox hunting, these things poll well

with the public, yet it is Mr Corbyn himself and the wider team around

him that will prevent these policies... It is a popular

manifesto, when people comparing with the 1983 longest suicide note

in history... It didn't do the many good then! There were important

things in it that are there now like unilateral disarmament, pulling out

of Nato, pulling out of Europe, there is nothing in this manifesto I

think that anybody somewhat to the left of centre couldn't agree with

warmly. What about the costings, though? Isn't that going to be the

day of reckoning in terms of the amount of money on social care,

abolishing tuition fees, these sound like very popular but very expensive

policies. What we need to see is how they are going to be costed, and

what the priorities are. Are these longer-term things? Are they really

going to abolish all tuition fees even for the richest families? Will

there be gradations? Who knows? It is really important that those are

watertight. And they won't be, because he is talking about spending

taxes, the same tax rise on multiple different projects. We heard from

the former Lib Dem pension Minister Steve Webb who said the commitment

to cancel the rising of the state pension age would cost 300 billion

over 20 years. But that is a bit of a chisel, over 20 years. Corbyn will

have to try to be in power for 20 years if he wants to fully

nationalise the rail. People say he will seize it back, but they fall

back in mostly in about 15 years, and they will fall back in without

any cost, because you are not snatching it back. The 1983

manifesto was all about grabbing back huge industries with no

compensation. There is quite a bit of that in the manifesto. We all

know the Conservatives are wanting to cap prices as well in terms of

energy companies. But the only bit of costing apart from the

re-spending as critics would say of corporation tax increases is this

idea of taxing those who earn over ?80,000 a bit more. Why so modest

from John McDonnell? He said it would only be a modest amount, that

doesn't sound like it would be enough to meet those costs. Maybe

there is a 50p tax for hire people. You could go up to 60p for the

people earning a million. You could, but you raise less money. Let save

this is the next week where we will have the manifesto is, finally.

Deal. The opinion polls are forecasting

a comfortable Conservative victory But after the surprise

result of 2015, Brexit and President Trump's win,

can we trust polling companies to give us an accurate

prediction of the result? Jenny Kumah's been looking at how

the pollsters are trying The Conservatives

are the largest party. It was the day that David Cameron

won, and you could argue They weren't able to get to people

who, if they did persist, they did pursue them,

difficult to get, but they They didn't get them,

so they got the more Labour. After the surprise result

of the 2015 general election, pollsters took a good,

hard look at the way they did and brought in changes

to improve accuracy. Despite this, many still failed

to forecast Brexit. So are they right about

next month's election? And just how sure can we be

that the polls' favourite will be moving into Number 10

on June the 9th? YouGov's online polls put Labour

and the Conservatives To improve their accuracy,

they've recruited more people to their survey panels who aren't

interested in politics and are less likely to vote,

so that their samples Despite this, they mainly forecast

a Remain result in 2016. What actually happened in the EU

referendum was there was a higher turnout than people expected,

and some social groups who don't normally vote so often actually

did come out and vote, How confident are you that your

forecasts for the 2017 Even if you look at polls

when we got it really wrong, so 1992, the famous error,

2015 when things were very wrong. The poll only got it wrong

by about seven points. If the Conservatives have got

a lead of about 19 points, then if you were just as wrong

as that, that would still leave In the polling industry, you're only

as good as your last game. ComRes's polls were

the least wrong in 2015. They then brought in new techniques

to better reflect turnout. But their final EU referendum poll

showed an 8-point lead for Remain. For the 2017 election,

if voters behave the way they did in the 2015 general election,

then our turnout modelling should The big question in my mind

is the impact of the 2016 referendum, and whether for some

voters that meant that for the first time they voted

and they are getting a taste for it. I think more likely, we've got

a slightly different problem, which is that some people may feel

that the result is a foregone conclusion, and they'll sit

on their hands, sit at home and do So do the public trust

the forecasters? I thought I'd do my

own opinion poll. A couple of them of late have

been a little way off. I think the people that partake

and vote or that they screen aren't a true representation

of the population. It's a safe bet to say that it's

definitely going to go one way, and the opinion polls will be proven

right this time, but I think we'll still be surprised

at how right it is. We'll know for sure

whether pollsters have done better And we've been joined

by Will Jennings, professor of politics at Southampton

University. Welcome. You were part of the

polling inquiry. What is your sense of why the pollsters got it wrong,

particularly in 2015? In 2015 after the election there was speculation

around whether it was to do with shy Tories with people not willing to

say they would vote Conservative, or lazy labour and Labour voters did

not turn out that the enquiry concluded there was slight evidence

for a late swing at the polls towards the Conservatives in the

final day or two, what caused it was unrepresentative samples and

pollsters were not getting enough people who had low political

engagement. They were over representing highly politically

engaged people and also under representing slightly older voters.

Are you worried it could happen again this time? When you said

certain groups were overrepresented it was felt support for Labour was

overrepresented. Could Labour support be lower or higher than the

polls currently estimate? There is an historical pattern of the polls

over the past 20 years of them tending to overstate Labour support

and it is difficult to know this election because there has been huge

mythological change across the industry with pollsters making

different changes. Some tinkered with turnout probabilities and how

likely people are to vote and many look to the quality of their panels

and it is difficult to know whether the historical pattern of Labour

support being overstated but we should not assume it will be and we

cannot assume the patterns of 2015, 2016 in the referendum, will

necessarily hold in 2017. Do we need to see companies spending more money

on the fieldwork and surveys they carry out in order to ensure they

are getting the representation? Pollsters are doing it incredibly

difficult job in an economically constrained situation. Newspapers

and broadcasters do not pay a lot of money for the polls and recruiting

high-quality panels to represent the population is expensive. I think

they are within the financial constraints they are operating doing

the best they can and trying to innovate methodology. The real

challenge of polling is you deal with a moving target between

elections and only get one test to see if your methodological changes

of work. What about TV debates, manifesto launches, what difference

do they make two changes in polling? There is debate academically about

how much campaigns matter. The evidence we have from looking at a

large number of elections in the UK and cross nationally, the polls tend

to converge on the final result steadily. As you approach election

day the polls tell you more about the result. We should not expect to

see large swings in public opinion in either direction as we head

towards Junior eight. Thank you very much. Christian May, do you trust

the polls? A lot was made of getting it wrong in 2015, but there have

been other polls since and the pollsters have been more accurate.

What he said was you need a high-quality panel to represent the

nation. We need a fume or are you to make it representative! Do you think

they are worth trusting? Yes as an indication. There are many different

things you can poll on and when you look at values and issues you get a

stark difference if the public thinks 70-30 on a topic it can be a

good indication but if it is a straight, yes, no race, you might

have 3-4% margin of error but the current polling with a 20% lead for

the Conservatives, a 3% margin will not change things. I think the

pollsters would have to pack up shop and go away and do something else if

they were wrong this time. 15, 20% point lead. If that were wildly

wrong, the game would be up. What is interesting is what people are

polled on. People like policies and Labour policies. When they are told

which party, which leader represents which policies, they change their

mind, which I am afraid shows leadership matters more than

everything else had wipes out almost everything. It was ever fuss. I

think it has become more so and every election gets more

presidential. Let's get a round-up of the election campaign news.

Thank you for letting me come inside and sit in the office. You have

found a chair! It is warm, not raining, I am undercover and it is

Friday and things are not as manic in the campaign as the past few days

but there has been plenty of news in the past 24 hours, including the

return of old faces. This is what has been happening.

He thought he'd said goodbye to the cringey photo-op,

but former PM David Cameron was back on the campaign trail

It's so important, not only that the Conservatives win and win

well, so Theresa can negotiate that Brexit deal, so she can stand up

to people that want an extreme Brexit either here or in Brussels.

Tony Blair has been talking Brexit in Ireland.

The game no one wants to play is back.

Check out this party election broadcast from the Greens,

Although they know carefully crafted pastiches are my thing, right?

Father's Day isn't enough for the Lib Dems.

They want a whole Father's Month, with a pledge to introduce more

Out filming for the BBC Politics Facebook page

with some cardboard cutouts, I stumbled into film

director Guy Ritchie, who seemed a bit confused.

Guy, Guy, who are you going to vote for in

Surely he'd recognise BoJo, who made a rare foray

Go on, say some funny long words, go on.

Guy Ritchie, do not worry, you will be able to see Theresa May in action

this afternoon, because she is in the North of England during a speech

about patriotism. While everybody is declaring whether or not they are a

pacifist, Ukip leader Paul Nuttall said he is not that he would only

send soldiers overseas if it was truly in the British national

interest. The biggest news, David Dimbleby is sitting just over there.

I spotted him earlier. He wants your chair, you will have to move, Adam.

Elsewhere, the SNP have accused the Conservatives of poisoning the well

of Brexit negotiations. By not yet guaranteeing

the continued rights of EU citizens living in the UK -

something the SNP have branded We're joined now from Dundee

by the SNP's Europe Welcome back to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May has said resolving the rights of EU citizens in the UK is a

priority in negotiations and she wants to deal with it first. That is

hardly poisoning the well? The issue of EU citizens is something she

could resolve now. I was at the University of Saint Andrews with the

First Minister, one of many institutions where EU citizens make

a contribution financially and making communities a better place in

which to live and work. The government could have solved this

problem a long time ago. As could the EU. It is something up to the UK

Government. They could say if you live here and have made your home

here, stay. In terms of poisoning the well, we see Theresa May...

After this election, there is a big job for parliamentarians which is to

scrutinise the work of the government over what kind of

relationship we have with Europe, on the environment, EU citizens. We

have Theresa May trying to criticise and hurl abuse at European partners

that she will have to negotiate with. This is a negotiation as you

have said, and what could be utterly contemptible about first offering to

deal with this issue before the formal negotiations started, which

was rejected by the EU. The government made an attempt to deal

with resolving the issue of the fate of EU citizens. Secondly, they have

to look at British citizens in EU countries. It is a two-way street.

If you take the issue of EU citizens who live here, we should be honoured

they have made Scotland and elsewhere in the UK their home. If

you look at the massive financial contribution alone, and it is more

than that, we would be financially worse off without these EU citizens.

Theresa May has not said she does not want them to stay. You are

implying she wants them to go. It is good for the UK to keep EU citizens,

who contribute so much. In the universities where I live, in our

tourist sector. In the food and drinks sector. They make a huge

contribution. The government can sort this out now. Given the way

Theresa May and Ruth Davidson have been sitting, the abuse they have

hurled at the people we need to negotiate with, this could be a

little bit of goodwill. They could have solved this problem months ago.

Yet they have let uncertainty go on almost a year and that is not

acceptable. I am sure that is unsettling for EU citizens living

here, but what about the 1.1 million British expats in the EU? Are you

not then leaving them out in the cold? The most substantial piece of

work done in terms of our future relationship with Europe was done by

the Scottish Government just before Christmas whereby it looked as a

compromise are looking at the single market, having freedom of movement.

I want to concentrate on the EU citizens and a reciprocal deal for

the British expats. You asked about that issue as well and that would

have solved that problem. We are not alone in thinking freedom of

movement is good because it benefits UK citizens living elsewhere in

Europe, as well as EU citizens here. That compromise document would have

solved the problem. That document has not been used and if we are

looking at your proposal to give a unilateral offer to the EU by saying

we will guarantee the rights of residency and right to work of all

EU citizens that are here, what happens to the 1.1 million British

expats? Are you prepared for them to have a less good deal if that is

what came back from the EU? We're not saying that which is why we put

forward the compromise document which would secure their rights as

well. The SNP is the only party who have put together a document that

would secure the rights of EU citizens and UK citizens. We have

had nothing from the UK Government, an interesting point in this

election campaign, where you see detail from the Scottish Government

had SNP and bluff and bluster from the Tories in terms of their dealing

with Europe. With the referendum campaign to solve a Tory civil war

and now we have a general election campaign to stave off another Tory

civil war and take advantage of the Labour Party Civil War. We should

get to grips with the substantial problems we have got as a result of

having to deal with the relationship with Europe and Theresa May's

language and using people as bargaining chips is making things

work. Nicola Sturgeon has ruled out increasing the top rate of tax with

the civil service analysis to the Scottish Government suggesting a

risk of ?30 million in lost revenues by the wealthy upping and leaving.

Wide you want to increase the top rate to 50p now? This is the same

situation as in the past two SNP manifesto is. You want a national

50p. Let's be clear with the viewers. The past two manifestos, I

think you are picking up on the Finance Minister's remarks reported

today. We have been clear we don't want to see Scotland to do that on

its own while we are still part of the union and do not have many

financial powers, we would like to see it across the UK. It is a

Westminster election and we have been clear where we can we will work

with other parties for progressive politics as we did in the last

Parliament and this is one area where we could work with other

parties in the UK Parliament. Does the Scottish Government have the

power to raise income tax? If it does so, you are doing so just in

Scotland and not elsewhere. You just said in your last answer you have...

That is why the Council of economic advisers and remember the first

registered took the innovative step of having a council of economic

advisers is something she refers to on this. On the point of Westminster

and these elections it is something we can work with other parties on

issues across the UK, while we are part of the UK, big decisions are

made about people in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK and we have a

responsibility to work in a constructive manner at Westminster.

If you continue talking at great length we cannot put the questions.

On the tax rate, you imply the Scottish Government does not have

much in the way of power but you have powers to raise income tax and

could have done so. You said you had very few powers, the words you use

but it was such a long time ago! In terms of raising the level of

income tax, you can do that. But why do it now when it is not looked at

in terms of being done across the rest of the UK? We are wanting to

see a reduction in austerity, because if you look at the cuts to

the Scottish Government, they are coming from Westminster, and if we

have that austerity, that is less money to spend on education, health,

crucial public services. Westminster has a huge role, it is essential we

have a strong team of SNP MPs in Westminster, and that is why we can

be the official opposition. Is this about a second independence

referendum? Why is it not on your SNP campaign leaflets? The Scottish

Parliament... This is the start of the campaign, and we are still in

favour... You have always known what your lines are an independence. I

don't figure that is a great secret. So why isn't it in your campaign

leaflet? The Scottish Parliament has voted in favour of independence.

What we want to see is Westminster respective decisions made at the

Scottish Parliament. Because you don't think you will get as big a

mandate this time around? The Tories have got us into this mess on just

36% of the vote, and the SNP has 95% of the seats in Scotland, so if

those are the two different margins you are comparing this by, I'm not

sure that is fair, but we are in this mess based on 36% of people in

the UK voted Conservative. I fight against the Conservatives in North

East Fife, and we know we have to work hard over the next few weeks.

Stephen, thank you very much. Let's take a look now at another

of the smaller parties campaign in the general election -

the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which is fielding

just three candidates. The Socialist Party of Great Britain

was founded in 1904 with the aim It's a leaderless organisation,

with more than 20,000 It takes inspiration from Marx,

but rejects Leninism and Trotskyism. It wants an immediate move

to a socialist system with a system As such, they don't believe in other

political parties or government. But presumably you are not the

leader? Certainly not! Because you don't have a leader? How does that

work in practice? We have democracy instead. So how do you make a

decision? What we do is in our party every year we have an annual

conference, and the conference is attended by delegates from all over

the country, issues are discussed, then they go back to their branches

and we vote on the issues. When I say democracy I mean we have a

system in our party where all relevant information to the party

freely available to every member. Every member has the same access to

the democratic process. But if you oppose all governments, which I the

case, are you standing in a general election? Because we are Democrats.

But what is the point? If you don't believe in the political system, why

are you standing is in it? We use it to put forward our propositions. To

what end? To change people's minds, to explain the system they live

under and put forward a better system of living. How can you do

that by only putting forward three candidates? By coming on television,

hopefully there are millions of people out there. There are millions

watching this programme, absolutely! But if you are only fielding three

candidates, it is not a very big offer you are making in terms of

trying to convert people. You mustn't underestimate people. I'm

not underestimating people, I am slightly questioning your ability to

appeal to a broad audience. We are a very small party with limited

resources. If we had unlimited resources, we would contest every

seat where we could delegate a member to do so. But the point of

coming on television like this is to put forward our case against

capitalism and socialism. If we look at Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, why

don't you just support him of the Labour Party? It isn't a socialist

party, it is a capitalist party and it always has been. We are a

principled party. You have just had a chap on the Labour Party talking

about defence. The Labour Party's principles change with the political

whim. The Communist Party said they were happy with Jeremy Corbyn and

the Labour Party manifesto. You are different to them, what what are the

differences between you, and the other socialist party, what marks

you out? What we want, what we stand for is socialism. But is that common

ownership and democratic control of the means of producing wealth,

carried out in the interest of the whole community. What they stand for

estate capitalism who believe in the state, whereas we do not. We believe

that for society to run correctly, it has to be run democratically, and

that means that the responsibility has to be shared, otherwise it is an

immature system. This is part of the political debate, but does this

party have anything to add in terms of the general election? Probably

quite useful for Jeremy Corbyn to have somebody to the left of him!

Have you found your members looking towards the Labour Party? The Labour

Party has brought in lots of people, have any of your members move

towards them? I think we had one member a couple of years ago join,

but our membership is fairly small but fairly stable, because we have a

unique way of viewing society, and a unique proposition to put forward as

far as the future goes. What about the nationalisation of the railways?

What is your view on that? It's not common ownership, it state

ownership. So what would you do? What we would do? The point is, we

do not propose to run capitalism. But running the role is, how they

run? On the basis of common ownership. They would be a resource

that the whole of society would produce and run for itself. Your

party also calls for a wage list, moneyless society, I was trying to

think of a comparison. Kibbutz in Israel used to run in a similar way.

What is your view of some of these policies? Danny Mac be interested to

know that the chief economics at the Bank of England has also talked

about a cashless society, but he was talking about moving away from hard

cash to something purely digital. I think society stripped of the

freedom and liberty that having money and personal choice gives them

would be miserable. Is it a burden? I think lack of it is more of a

burden. All wealth in society are socially produced, and so it should

be socially administered. We live in a society that is based on

employment, so you have employers and employed. There is a French

word, it means to use, to take advantage of. We want a society

where we give freely of our social creativity and take freely from

social production. Then no longer do we have to sell ourselves for a

price, we will be free, and we will live a life without price. Any

examples of that going on at the moment? Human beings have to sell

themselves on the labour market, the sordid process of selling ourselves

on the labour market, somebody will use us for their ends. Can you give

me an example of where that could work successfully and does work?

Venezuelan? That is cheap. This is much more like Christianity in its

purest form. Consider the lilies of the field. It is that kind of

utopianism. It has a place. Don't all talk at once. Final word to

Danny. It is not utopian. What allows capitalism to function is the

egregious case of mistaken identity. We all share the same ancestors, we

are all members of the same family, that is our common identity. With a

common identity, it is impossible to exploit orca worse in anyway, and

capitalism runs on mistaken identity. Danny Lafferty, we have to

finish there. We may be saying adios,

adieu and auf wiedersehen to the European Union,

but as the Prime Minister assured us earlier this week, it

will still be wilkommen, bienvenue and welcome

for the Brits when it comes to the Eurovision Song Contest

in Kiev tomorrow. But will our erstwhile European

partners deliver a Brexit Macro I have always wanted to say

that! Let's remind ourselves

what this bit of European # Knowing my fate

is to be with you...# # Rise like a Phoenix

out of the ashes # Spin my head and

# Power to the boys that played rock and roll

# And soon you will find that there comes a time

We've been joined by Chris West, author of Eurovision!A History of

You must have a lot of fun doing this? I love it. I have seen every

Eurovision is on but has ever been some. Is that right? Except for two

years where they have lost all the tapes, the first one, 56, and in

1964, they lost the tape, and someone wants find a box with

Eurovision 1964 on it, opened its... And it was empty. Crime of the

century! What impact do you think Brexit will have on our role? I

don't know, and it is interesting. Eurovision is a signalling mechanism

whereby other countries will pass judgment on another country, so if

you look at 2003, Iraq, we came last. It wasn't a great song or

performance, but I think out there, people were saying they didn't

approve of that. What will we get this year? We don't know. It might

be that Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal... Will they take their

revenge? If they are having a horrible time, they might vote for

us so we might get the douze point, then? Politics is a big deal in this

Eurovision Song contest. I have to say my heart slightly sank when I

saw the countries voting for each other rather than the songs. That

changed when they change the judging system. You should watch! Do you

watch it? My grandchildren love it, it is brain much a kid thing. What

is good to remember and what is good about your book is it was started at

the same time at the beginning of the whole European idea, and it came

from that sort of idealism. And it is kind of bonkers and crazy now we

have Egypt and... Europe has grown! And Australia, which is wonderful!

So we are taking it broadly! But Polly does make an interesting point

about what it was there for in the beginning, and that is the point.

Yes, the founder was a great friend of the founding of the EU, so it

does come from the same root. Theresa May pulled a terrible face

because she plainly thinks we will be punished, and we certainly

deserve to be. Maybe we will get some Euro-sceptic solidarity from

the countries that I Euro-sceptic, maybe a sympathy vote. I have never

watched it, but we might go into the top five! It is never too late. I am

going to quickly finish it there, thank you very much for coming in.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

So Polly, Christian, what's the correct answer?

Is it just the amount the parties spend the whole general election? As

long as the returns are signed off properly I think 140. Let's find out

if mark, my political collie, is there and can give is the answer.

What is the answer? After some number crunching, we found out that

the Government expects the UK general election to cost the

taxpayer ?143 million, that is ?101 million spent on printing the postal

vote, ballot papers, the tens of thousands of polling stations being

manned and counting millions of votes, and ?42 million on election

mailings, distributions for the candidates, and that is according to

the Cabinet Office and Northern Ireland Office. Thank you very much

for crunching the numbers, well done, Polly.

Thanks to Polly, Christian and all my guests.

The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.