16/05/2017 Daily Politics

Jeremy Corbyn unveils Labour's election manifesto -

with the promise of big increases in public spending, tax rises

for the better off - and a wave of re-nationalisation

taking various utilities back into public ownership.

Jeremy Corbyn says his "programme of hope" is fully costed.

The Conservatives say Labour's sums "don't add up".

We'll hear from one of Mr Corbyn's key lieutenants.

Also on today's programme - former Deputy Prime Minister

Nick Clegg joins us to discuss secret intelligence,

the future of the Lib Dems - and political promises.

And why do politicians try so hard to be cool with the kids?

After weeks of interviews where politicians have had to say you will

have to wait for the manifesto, we get to see the policies in detail.

First out of the traps this morning was Labour, with Jeremy Corbyn

unveiling his manifesto at an event in Bradford.

So what are the headlines from what he calls his

A future Labour government would spend a lot more on a wide

Here are the headlines: An extra ?7.4 billion a year

?6.3 billion more every year for schools across the UK

and scrapping university tuition fees at an estimated annual

And Labour would also reverse some welfare cuts,

for example, they would scrap the so-called "bedroom tax".

They would also recruit an extra 10,000 police officers

in England and Wales at a cost of ?300 million a year.

And they would end the current pay cap for public sector workers.

So, to pay for all that, Labour are also proposing

Corporation tax will go up to 26% by 2021 -

There will also be a tax of up to 0.5% on financial transactions,

that's a so-called "Robin Hood tax" on financial products

And there will also a high pay levy, that's a surcharge of up to 5%

on companies paying individuals more than ?500,000 a year.

And income tax will also go up for the top earners -

Another key feature of Labour's manifesto is a radical programme

Labour wants national utilities and services to come back

The recent privatisation of the Royal Mail would be reversed.

Rail companies would come back into public ownership gradually

Labour would also seek to nationalise the UK's

And in the energy sector - Labour would seek to bring

the National Grid under public control and also create regional,

Let's have a look at some of what Jeremy Corbyn had to say.

Today, we are setting out a manifesto to transform the 21st

century in the same way that Harold Wilson in the 1960s sought to

transform the 20th century. It is an absolute pleasure to be here today.

This manifesto is a graft for a better future for our country. It is

a blueprint of what Britain could be and a pledge of the difference a

Labour government can and will make. Jeremy Corbyn speaking earlier. He

is still speaking at the moment, launching this manifesto at a press

conference in Bradford. We hope to speak to the Shadow Cabinet member

about it but he cannot leave until the Labour leader has finished so we

will have to be patient about that. The BBC's Chris Mason is with us. He

has been watching the manifesto launch. He joins us now. Are there

any surprises or is it much what we expected because of the league last

week? We have been comparing it dry by draft and thankfully there are

more people to flick through the pages that there were the other

night when I went through a! Minor tweaks in language. They are

promising and expansion onshore start centres were in the draft they

were talking about maintaining the existing network -- and expansion of

Sure Start centres. Broadly speaking it is the same. I guess the obvious

conclusion, and it is obvious but it is worth three stating, is for soap,

so long there was a shtick in politics where people would say what

is the point, all the big parties are just the same? That is

completely unsustainable now with this position with a vast

nationalisation programme and a very different perspective that forward

by Labour than the Conservatives. The other bit is where the scrutiny

will come which is on the numbers. Labour have promised this document

alongside the manifesto on their costings. The tax would be almost 50

billion. By the end of the parliament, it builds up. But when

you look at the small print and some of the references about how they

will make numbers add up there is still plenty of scope for scrutiny.

People are looking quite cleanly at some of their childcare plans and

how they have costed that and it looks like it has been referenced to

a Fabian Society review. Whether that would be regarded as standing

up to as much scrutiny as we would look to after a budget, and whether

there are spreadsheets and office the budget responsibility numbers,

we don't know. They plan to spend about 50 billion more in current

spending in various ways, getting rid of tuition fees, the NHS and so

on, and they plan to raise taxes by 50 billion almost to pay for it,

that is the broad thrust. Yes, around 50 billion in extra taxes and

then on top of that the idea for significant borrowing. They make the

point that the borrowing would be for investment, long-term staff as

opposed to day-to-day spending that a government does, but they make the

argument that it is something very much worth doing. It is worth

looking at how they divide what would be current spending paid for

by tax rises versus what they say would be justified for borrowing.

For instance, on the whole business of the NHS, and they were making

this argument over the weekend, they say that ?10 billion worth of

additional spending on the NHS which they say would be ring-fenced for

infrastructure and IT, obviously topical in the context of the cyber

attack, they say that would be justified in coming from borrowing

because it would be long-term capital investment. That would go to

the borrowing side as well? But they would also put additional capital

spending on the borrowing side as well which by 2020 or 2021 would be

50 billion. They are going to add 25 billion to that and then perhaps

other parts will be added? They look like they will still, by the

beginning of the next decade, be borrowing a lot, even if it is just

for capital spending? So it would seem and they are pretty proud that

it is worth doing. It emphasises that the massive ideological

difference and outlook in terms of how Labour and the Conservatives

prepared to run the country. I am not saying you have read every word,

but is there quite a lot of detail beyond the broad figures in terms of

costs, spending and taxes? Is there the detail that Labour were being

asked for in terms of costing these spending pledges? There is this

separate document they put out. I suspect, and we are still in the

opening minutes of that being scrutinised, there will be some

holes pulled into that. First, there is a distinct lack of information

about the costings of the nationalisations. Even the stuff

they offer are costing four, some of the references on the face of it

look like they will be plenty of unpicking that will go on there. On

the broader picture in terms of the promises, what is quite striking as

there is a huge array of retail political offices the offers, in

small detail. The idea of having free Wi-Fi on all trains under a

nationalised rail network. Some of the polling suggests some of their

headline offers are quite popular. I saw this analogy yesterday which is

quite a good one, you can see things that are enticing on the restaurant

menu but if you don't like the look of the menu, would you walk through

the door? That is the big challenge for Labour. Some of these questions

we hope to put to Andy McDonald from the Labour Party who will join us

when the manifesto launch is over. Listening to that was Nick Clegg who

joins us. What to make of what you have heard so far? I have just run

from an underground station! Even from politicians stand is asking me

to pronounce with precious little detail! The good thing about this is

this is a manifesto squarely capped in a completely different

ideological space. It is taking a massive gamble that you could

squeeze that amount of money from many people who are the Tories leak

mobile and can afford taxes. It sounds great to say you're going to

squeeze the top 5%, it is incredibly difficult in practice and it can be

huge inhibition to economic growth and so on. They are taking a huge

gamble, they're not going to kill the economy as they squeeze out

money from this fantastic list of wonderful sounding free everything

for everybody, and at the same time remaining, which is the most

striking omission, stunningly silent on the biggest economic risk to the

British economy of all, which is we are going to extricate ourselves

from the world was at most integrated borderless marketplace,

and by the sounds that from the customs union as well. During this

election campaign Labour have sided fully with the Conservative Party to

pull us out of the single market. Every authorities economic analysis

says it will have a fact on the British economy. I do think there is

any dispute the free Wi-Fi, free disk of a free that, sounds great.

As ever with the Labour Party, is it credible? From little of what I have

heard a lot on what was leaked last week, I don't find it credible at

all. A lot of it was leaked last week, I do think you missed too

much. We got the figures. We will return

to that. Chris Mason, thank you for joining us and Nick Clegg, good to

see you. Yes, welcome. While we wait for Andy

McDonald, let's look at events across the antics. -- Atlantic.

The White House has denied allegations that President Trump

shared highly classified intelligence about Islamic State

during a meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister last week.

President Trump held talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei

Lavrov at the White House last Wednesday.

But according to a report in the Washington Post today,

the President apparently went off script during the meeting

and began describing details of an Islamic State terrorist threat

related to the use of laptop computers on aircraft.

The story claims that the information had been

provided by a US partner through

Well, President Trump's National Security Advisor,

HR McMaster, told reporters that the story was untrue.

At no time, at no time, were intelligence sources or methods

discussed and the president did not disclose any military operations

that were not already publicly known.

Two other senior officials who were present, including

the Secretary of State, remember the meeting the same

Their on-the-record accounts should outweigh those of anonymous sources.

Nick Clegg, Washington is reeling from the firing of James Coney, what

do you think they are doing now as a result of this report in the

Washington Post? What I find striking is it would not have found

its way into the Washington Post if someone very much close to the

operational, either security establishment either the White House

itself, was not so outraged that they chose to leak it. You have an

administration by the sounds of it to all intents and purposes at war

with itself. Whatever your views about Donald Trump and his ideology,

to have an administration which appears so dysfunctional, very

worrying. It is clear now there are parts of the Washington

establishment who do not trust their own president with confidential

security briefings, as someone who received them for years, day in, day

out, it is astonishing. You were privy in your former life as Deputy

Prime Minister to all sorts of intelligence and the implication is

this intelligence came from a third-party, it could have Britain,

of course. I have no idea who it came from. We would be up there with

information... We have a very intimate intelligence relationship

with the US and Australia, New Zealand and others. Of course, yes,

you are right, it has a ripple effect on the intelligence community

beyond America if you feel the commander-in-chief, and this is the

way it comes across, it may be unfair, as if he is bragging about

the information at his disposal to Sergei Lavrov. That is very worrying

for Western intelligence generally. You say it is worrying for the

Washington establishment if parts of people there do not trust the

President, worrying for the wider intelligence community, what can

Donald Trump do now to extricate himself from the growing clamour,

the piling up of claims of his links with Russia? He has got to come

clean. He has got to get beyond this. Has it gone too far? He wanted

to end the controversy surrounding it. It was inevitable the moment he

fired Comey, but one thing seasoned Washington observers thought, it

would only then spiral in precisely the direction he was seeking to

avoid. Everyone asks, what is the motive? To all intents and purposes,

if you charge around saying, everything is fake news, you fire

people, you have got something to hide. I have not got the faintest

idea, I am not privy to this stuff, but he is giving every appearance of

being a political leader who is acting out stress and in a very

impetuous Wade and reacting very defensively and of course that is

worrisome. If there is a Russian connection that is yet to come out,

it is the most amazing game of double bluff. He has fired missiles

into Syria, blamed the Russians for a lot of what is going on, and

yesterday, the US wanted out the Syrians had built a crematorium

where they are burning the bodies of the thousands of people they have

tortured and killed. And then said, the Russians have been complicit in

this. It is amazing. Yes, though what I find interesting is the

pattern of condemnation of Russia did emerge somewhat belatedly.

Again, you cannot help but feel, why have they come so late in the day to

condemning Russia's belligerent behaviour in Syria and Ukraine?

Again, I'm afraid, when these narratives get going, everything

reinforces itself. They are somehow seeking to cover their tracks. That

is how it looks. The question for today is,

which of these election photo B) Tim Farron covered

in orange powder? Or d) Nick Clegg

high-fiving in Kent? At the end of the show,

Nick will hopefully give us I think there is a Liberal Democrat

theme! I hope it does because I do not know what it is! Someone in my

ear will tell me. We've been joined from Bradford

by the Shadow Transport Welcome to the programme. For the

past month, we have been told you have to wait, when we ask, where is

the money coming from? Wait for the manifesto, we were told. The

manifesto is published today, lots of detailed costings in it, you want

to nationalise the National Grid. Its market cap is about 40 billion

at the moment. How would you pay for nationalising it? John McDonnell is

going to roll all of the figures out over the next few days in great

detail. I will not trespass into his territory. It does make some

sense... Hold on. We have had to listen... Hold on. You told us all

would be revealed when the manifesto was published. You are now saying we

have to wait again? Does the manifesto not tell us how you will

pay for the nationalising of the National Grid? Well, it sets up very

clearly that there needs to be a rebalance of where the emphasis lies

in terms of raising taxes. This is about a fundamental change so we can

uplift everybody and not just concentrate on those who are

fortunate enough to be extremely rich. We want to uplift everybody.

That is the thrust of our excellent manifesto. It is 128 pages, so I am

not across at all, but I have looked at the funding pages, you want to

raise almost 50 billion to spend on various things. Nationalising the

National Grid is not included in that 50 billion yuan trading. Where

will the money come from for that? -- the 50 billion yuan raising. It

is part of the taxation and spend programme and the money will come

for that in the fullness of time. If you have the wording in front of you

and I have not, I think you will find it says it is something we want

to achieve over time. That is not going to be... That is the ambition

of the manifesto commitment. What about the water companies which you

also want to nationalise? Thames water, one of the biggest, that

alone is worth about ?12 billion. How would you finance that? Well,

again, Andrew, we have set out how we look to the very richest in our

society to make a better contribution. But that is not

nationalisation... Well, those are the funds we will be drawing on to

fund the entire programme and it is about making sure that those

corporate entities who are enjoying and will continue to enjoy the

lowest corporation tax in the G7 will flourish and continue to

flourish but that they make the proper contribution. We have also

got a ?36 billion tax gap to fill which quite frankly has been given

little regard by the Tory government. They have been content

for people to offshore their earnings, because they are part of

the same elite vested interests that we are so determined to tackle head

on. That is where funding comes from to achieve this very ambitious

programme. You hope to raise about ?6 billion more from raising taxes

of the top 5%, but you have already told us that money will go to

finance more money for the NHS. Not for the water company purchased or

the National Grid or the Royal Mail. Where does the money come from for

that? You are quite right. What we are saying is, we will protect 95%

of the working population, they will not see tax rises and National

Insurance contribution rises. We ask the very richest make a small

contribution, we are asking corporations who benefit so much

from trading in our country to again make the small contribution and

still be the lowest rate in the G7. Both the money you hope to raise

from increasing corporation tax and the money you hope to raise from

raising taxes on the top 5%, that is already spent in your manifesto on

things like the NHS, abolishing tuition fees, on social care, and so

on. It is not being spent on what I am asking you about which is the

cost of nationalisation. Andrew, it is hot off the press, published at

11 o'clock, John McDonnell... You are in the Shadow Cabinet. John

McDonnell will go into further detail. I will not trespass into his

territory when he will give you the clarity you will have in abundance.

I have been at the meeting when we looked at the draft we agreed on and

this is the published format that I looked at this morning. If you have

read it which I have not yet have the privilege of doing, not all of

it, but if you have read it, what does the manifesto say about

financing the nationalisation of the National Grid, the water companies

and the Royal Mail? As I have said, Andrew, we have set out that

programme, we told you very clearly where money is coming from. Where is

it coming from? Tell me again. Assume I am a slow learner. Andrew,

I have said to you, let John McDonnell role that out in very

great detail. Is it in the manifesto? It is hot off the

presses. My understanding it is there... You have read it. We are

trying to keep this under wraps until quarter to 11! It is quite a

weighty tome. Give me a chance, I will have a good look at it. You are

going to increase the bank levy, increase corporation tax by a third,

increase capital gains tax, introduced a financial transactions

tax, put a cap on top pay, have higher taxes for those earning over

80,000 a year, you will have a levy on companies paying high salaries.

What allowances have you made by doing all of that that the behaviour

in companies and people will change and you will not get the money you

think? Well, I think those are modest and reasonable proposals and

it makes all the sense in the world to me that when people are trading

with shares, the .5%, if they then get into trading on derivatives,

there should be some transaction from that when they are gambling on

the increase or decrease in those shares -- not .5%. It is financially

profitable. Contributions should be made. It is a tiny... What if they

go abroad? Individuals or corporations? Both. People who...

Some people may go off to buy an island in the Caribbean but some

have already done that. They might just go to Switzerland. I am

absolutely convinced there is the patriotic commitment to our country

and these are modest contributions that we are asking for. You have to

remember, the corporation tax was at 28%. We are talking now of getting

it down to 17%. Lord alone knows what will happen if ultimately a

Conservative government that is re-elected takes us down to 12%.

What will happen then to the NHS and schools and social care? These are

the things that are crucially important to everyday people, these

are the priorities and you have to have a tax base, a reasonably

structured tax base to make sure those provisions are made. You also

have a lot of money you want to borrow to spend on what is generally

called infrastructure investment. But you will not be allowed to bid

for the infrastructure investment if the senior management is paid 20

times more than the lowest worker. Lowest paid worker. Are you aware of

any infrastructure companies, British or foreign, where the ratio

is 20 to one or below? Any? I cannot give you a direct response to that.

But what I can tell you is that it is eminently reasonable that there

be some relationship between those people who are working hard every

day, creating that wealth, and the individuals at the top of the

organisation. Pay scales have got out of hand and they are

ridiculously at comparative rates between all agree -- between

ordinary people and the wealth of the company. They should be a

relationship between the two. I do not anticipate it will impinge...

Really? People will want to invest in our country, they need to abide

by our systems and make proper contributions. What happens if the

companies say, we will not do that? We will not bid for the British

infrastructure contracts. The world is full of infrastructure contracts,

we will not cut the salaries of senior management to suit a Labour

government. What do you do then? How do you build the railways and the

roads? How do you do it? The problem we have had in this country for many

years is people coming to invest have found the infrastructure

woefully inadequate and we have laid out our commitment to invest in

infrastructure to make sure we have got transport infrastructure for the

21st-century. The condition you are making could lead to an

infrastructure strike, companies just will not bid. I am not

convinced that is the case at all. I think these companies will want to

invest in our country. They know they have got a government who wants

to work with them but there has to be some sense prevailing in terms of

the excesses drawn out of the system and I certainly do not think a

government in the UK should be party to simply pouring money into the

coffers of a tiny minority. These investment strategies have to be for

the benefit of the entire country, not for a handful of individuals.

That is obscene. We have to make sure the entire nation benefits, not

just a few. Lots more to talk about. We will do that more before the 8th

of June. Thank you for joining us. Let's get a round-up of all

the other election campaign news. Thanks, Jo. It has been an action

packed 24 hours of campaigning. If I had one piece of advice for

politicians today, it would be do your advice on figures, especially

before going on the radio. When will they learn? That is a clue about

what is coming up and we have also had some very friends making an

appearance on the campaign Trail and I do not just mean the candidates.

Sit back and enjoy today's campaign round-up.

That awkward moment when an unwanted guest gate-crashes your party.

During Theresa May's ITV's Facebook live, look who pops up...

I have a question in from Jeremy Corbyn of Islington.

House-building is at its lowest, do you not think the British

I and he take questions directly from voters.

And if the government can do sweetheart deals for Surrey, well,

Meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn was reminding Labour voters

in West Yorkshire of that alleged Tory deal for Surrey County Council.

Although I do realise for Tory ministers,

Diane Abbott isn't the only one struggling with her sums.

What is Britain's deficit at the moment?

Labour's John McDonnell was accused of googling the deficit figure

Did somebody pass you a piece of paper?

It sounded like a bit of paper was being handed.

The Shadow Chancellor appeared to get it wrong by 18 billion,

quoting the figure given on Wikipedia, rather than

Tim Farron addressed a business breakfast in Bath.

Lib Dems want to create a start-up allowance to help

I want to do an uncharacteristic thing and shut up and listen,

And who needs a battle bus for getting about?

Nicholas Soames isn't the only one with a four-legged friend.

So there you go, what will our colourful cast get up to next? I can

assure you, Andrew, whatever it is, we will be watching and we will

bring you the best bits. More tomorrow. I have no doubt about

that. Throughout the campaign we have been taking the mood box

around. Today, Ellie is in Edinburgh. At least, I hope she is!

She is being very quiet. Lines to Edinburgh are down so let's

go straight into it cutting Ellie out.

# I need a little time to think it over...

They all make promises they don't keep eventually.

Do you trust the political parties to stick to their manifestos?

Well, if it's a straight yes or no, I think the answer

It's partly an individual loss of integrity for people and partly

the whole system is set up that people have to compromise and lie

in order to get votes and they don't carry it through.

I think I would only trust the SNP, honestly.

I think Sturgeon comes through as truthful.

Manifestos, they don't ever really seem to come to fruition in the way

I feel a bit strange answering this question!

They have proven they don't stick to the manifesto.

Lib Dems I think would but they are not going to get in.

# Promises, promises turn to dust # Trust into mistrust...

Do you think you can trust the political parties to keep

Looks like a trolley load of empty promises.

Well, yes, I suppose it would be, really.

No, I think even the sincerest parties that might actually

want to stick to the policies find that once they get

I think if people can actually stick with the idea of the promises

and maybe some of the detail might have to change, that is fair enough.

That is being practical about things because things change.

Usually, when they say things like, I am going to fix the problems

in the health service or money or something like this, usually,

well, it doesn't always get worse, but it doesn't usually get better.

Any lasting relationship needs trust and when the political parties come

wooing voters in this marginal seat, they will have their work cut out

because no, the majority don't think that the parties stick

That was one that Ellie recorded earlier! We could not get to her

life in Edinburgh. I do not want to get into tuition fees but are people

now less trusting in politicians do you think? I don't know. I think

they have always been distrusting? Look, it is eyed dilemma I have

grappled with myself. I do not have a perfect answer. There is always a

collision between what you ideally want to do in life and what reality

allows you to do, not just in politics but in life generally. The

idea that every time a politician needs to make a compromise with

reality, that they are shouted down as somehow being morally callow and

betrayed, that is a problem. With each turn of the wheel, even where

innocent collisions happen, cynicism just increases. What is out of order

is if people knowingly say something which they have deliberately planned

to not do. I find myself in the invidious position, I am not in

charge and so on and so forth, but I wonder if politicians need to do

more to be upfront with people to say that manifestos are not tablets

of stone. My changes, banking crisis happens, wars happen. Maybe at this

breathless phase of the election campaign be more grown-up but talk

about what we can and cannot do. You have said the Leave side of the

referendum campaign never made it clear that we have to leave the

membership of the single market, you said that and when we were on the

Sunday Politics we ran a bit of tape. I want to run it again to seek

your actions are still the same. We looked at what people had said on

the Leave and Remain side about the single market. Let's just refresh

our memories. The British public would be voting to leave the EU and

to leave the single market. Should we come out of the single market?

That almost certainly would be the case, yes. Do you want to stay

inside the single market? No, we should be outside the single market.

I had Michael Gove in the chair and I said after Brexit would we be in

the single market yes or no and he said no. And he was right.

Absolutely. We would be outside of the single market, that is the

reality. Britain would be quitting the single market. When I showed

that two last time you said it was just sound bites. I tell you why I

still disagree with you... People will think actually we did make it

fit it clear. No one watching that received a manifesto from the Brexit

campaign saying this is the kind of Brexit we propose to. We did not

have one with Kate Hoey, Michael Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove

on cross-party basis saying we want to leave and this is why. That is

why you were quite rightly asking them in interviews in television

studios. Writer that the blood Owen Paterson said it would be mad to

leave the single market, Nigel Farage and Dan Hannan had advocated

the Norwegian approach which retains our membership of the single market.

In other words, it was debatable. It was never put to the British people

in clear way. I am afraid, I still cannot accept that a number of

individual statements under pressure in question and answer session in a

television studio constitutes an open proposition to the British

people about what Brexit means in practice. But you did not seem to be

in much doubt either that we would be leaving the single market if we

voted to leave. This is what you said in a debate. To be further

Brexit campaign have come clean now and said we dislike it so much we

actually want to tear up Margaret Thatcher's single European act. I

think that is a devastatingly self harming thing to do economically. I

would not want it on my conscience. Even you were clear. You said they

made it clear they wanted to tear up the single market arrangement. The

problem is you were taking a number of statements and I think

translating or describing that as an open proposition to the British

people in the most important referendum in our lifetime, what I

was reacting to is under pressure in interviews, some Brexiteers, not all

of them, were saying that they felt this meant we would leave the single

market. The British people never had a clear proposition put to them as

one on a cross-party basis, by the Brexit campaign and invoking what

George Osborne and David Cameron said is the oddest thing of all. You

are having the winning side of a referendum quoting the words of the

losing side of the referendum. If the British people watch, and David

Cameron says we would have to leave the single market, George Osborne

says we would have to leave, Michael Gove said we had to leave, Andrew

Ledson said we would have to leave, Boris Johnson said, Nick Clegg said

we would have to leave, what is your argument? Guess what, people don't

watch. They don't watch the interviews between you and me and

Andrew Marr on Sunday. They don't read manifestos either. We have

today an important moment. The principal party of opposition are

publishing a manifesto and you quite rightly are scrutinising the

manifesto, because you accept it is a convention in aid can see that the

two sides, multiple sides in a debate, that forward a coherent plan

for what they want to do. That did not happen in the run-up to the

referendum. The one thing we knew that people did take notice of which

was not snatched conversations in TV studios, was a big lie on the side

of a bus. And we went through them with that. My point is that even you

were clear that if we voted to leave we left men should of the single

market. Let's not Miss translating is, some Brexiteers had admitted

that. There was no manifesto from the Brexit campaign. I still don't

know, it is quite remarkable, almost a year since the referendum, I still

don't know because I cannot get a clear answer from the government or

Brexiteers, what they want to do in the customs union, what they mean by

a agreement which apparently now will deliver us miraculously the

exact same benefits in the words of David Davis as being inside the

single market. I think all of this is specious nonsense. If I get

worked up about it, I tell you why, I don't think they ever came clean

with the British public. Used just said they had come clean but never

mind. In a form in which the of people who voted you could describe

as being fairly informed by a cross-party campaign group. But you

are losing the argued. The latest YouGov poll says 68% support Brexit.

Even people who voted to Remain but now think you should get on with it.

You are in a minority now. I predict that even people who voted Remain,

it is a pragmatic British added to, or they say come on, move along. I

totally understand that. By the way, those are exactly the same people

who may well in the next year change their minds when they feel the

reality of Brexit is not all it is cracked up to be. But of course, I

would fully expect that many Remain voters, who do not feel strongly

about it as others, say come on, we should move on. I will play another

clip. It does not involve you! I think he's your Treasury spokesman

Vince Cable. How many people would give pay rise

to? Roux across the public sector... How many is that? Millions. The core

public sector, teachers, nurses, public sector workers. About 1

million people? 5 million people? A couple. 2 million? Roughly. How much

would it cost? 1.4 billion in the first year, subsequently will depend

on the rate of inflation. The total number of public sector workers as

of December last year was 5.4 million people. Right. Trained

economist, graduated from Cambridge, PhD from the University of Glasgow,

Diane Abbott moment? I could easily have a Diane Abbott moment. We all

could! He should just have said, I have not got the figures. Funnily

enough, I was doing it quickly myself, I think it is actually 5.4

in the whole of the UK... 4.5 in England which is what the policy

applies to. It is 5.5 if you include devolved administrations. Vince is a

great guy, even people with an encyclopaedic brain like Vince, they

do not have all the statistics... We are all vulnerable. By the grace of

God go I. It's not just Labour who are

publishing their manifesto today. Plaid Cymru have also been busy

setting out their pitch to the public, with a promise

to provide a strong voice Here's the party

leader, Leanne Wood. The choice is not between

the Conservatives and Labour. The choice is whether we want to put

Wales on the political landscape. The choice is whether we keep voting

for London-based parties for our own party, for a party

which is based in Wales and whose only loyalty is to the people

who live here. The party's finance

spokesman, Adam Price, Welcome back to the Daily Politics.

Your party opposed back set-macro and 52% of Wales voted to leave. --

your party opposed Brexit. Is it a case of a little too little and a

little too late? The arguments of the past should be left there. We

have to look to the future. We are coming out of the EU and we have to

ensure it is the best Brexit possible for the Welsh economy.

There specific risks because of the structure of our economy,

manufacturing and farming are much bigger, but there are also

opportunities which are not often talked about. Coming out of the EU,

we now have the ability to set regional or subnational rates for

different taxes like the 80. We could have a lower VAT rate to help

our tourism sector -- different taxes like VAT. Also we could have

variable corporation tax rates reflecting lower levels of economic

prosperity in places like Wales. It would give us a competitive

advantage to draw businesses to Wales and help those here to grow.

You want the Government to match every penny of EU funding Wales

received, what happens if they do not? It goes back to the earlier

conversation. I am old-fashioned when it comes to promises made by

politicians. You think they should keep them? It started with the Iraq

war, the lies that happened then, it left a shadow and it remains

reflected there in the low levels of trust we have in our democratic

system. Let us institute a new rule, if you make a promise, you keep to

it. We remember the bus, totting up the figure, proportionally, it

should mean 17 million a week for Wales. We were promised we would not

lose a penny of EU money we get for farmers and regional development.

The two together, it is 30 million a week, by my calculation, District

General Hospital built in Wales with the money we were promised every

month. Why are more people not listening to that message? If you

are putting forward a comprehensive argument for Wales, why are you not

gaining more votes from Labour for example? In the by-election last

year, you came third behind Ukip. The message is falling on the dears.

The local elections, the biggest opinion poll we could have, we

almost had our best ever result -- falling on deaf ears. It is clear,

the conversations I am having, people are listening, particularly

disaffected Labour voters, but also people from other parties, they are

looking for new leadership, a new voice. Wales is not on the political

radar at the moment, a tiny blip in terms of the priorities for those

people in Westminster... Isn't that down to you? We have got to reverse

that. People sit up and listen in the corridors of power when Scotland

is met -- when Scotland is mentioned because people vote SNP. Gibraltar

is more talked about than Wales at the moment. The only way we can turn

it around is if we vote collectively as a nation for the party of Wales.

How strong a part does Welsh independence play in your manifesto?

It is a long-term dream for a nation, it is in the foreword... It

is a minor part? Let us be realistic. We are 30% poorer than

the rest of the UK and it has been a story of decline under Labour and

Conservative governments. You cannot go from that position being

self-reliant economically by the flick of a switch. We are being tee

asking for the new tools that we can have as a result of Brexit. -- we

are asking for the neutrals. Give us the tools. We are not asking for

charity, we are asking for help to help ourselves. Thank you very much,

and price. -- Adam Price. Let's take a look now

at the platform of another party standing in the general election -

the Liberal Party. Not to be confused with

the Liberal Democrats! The Liberal Party traces its roots

back to 1859, but it was founded in its current form in 1989 by those

opposed to the creation It has around 2,500 Twitter

followers and campaigns for every citizen to possess liberty,

property and security. The party seeks withdrawal

from the European Union and campaigned for a leave vote

in last year's referendum. It supports spending 0.7%

of national income on overseas aid and would negotiate the cancellation

of Third World debt. It also calls for the wider use

of Esperanto as a language for all governments and people

who wish to use it. Let us now go and speak to the man

who represents the Liberal Party. Thank you for joining us. When we

think of the Liberal Party, we think of the 19th century, Gladstone, what

are the historic and intellectual antecedents for your party? It is a

lot of the Gladstone principles of free trade, simplify taxation,

encouraging business, they are as true and valid and useful for the UK

looking ahead today as it was so many years ago. You call yourselves

the real liberals and not the Lib Dems. Why are the Liberal Democrats,

you can draw a line back from them to Gladstone as well, why are they

not withdraw Democrats? There are a mixed bag. There are some colleagues

who I would feel comfortable you liberals and others are openly

campaigning on the basis they want a new centre party which is not

particularly liberal and would have Tony Blair as its leader and they

want centre politics and pro-European centralisation. To be

blunt about it, the main difference between the Liberal Party and the

Liberal Democrats is the Liberal Party is looking to Britain being a

global player, a sovereign country looking out to the world, rather

than the Liberal Democrats hankering back to sabotage Brexit and they

want to sign up to the euro. There is a clear water shed. We have got

Nick Clegg, former leader of the Lib Dems here, what do you say to that?

I think Steve should join the Conservatives. I am not saying that

facetiously, everything he said is mainstream conservative thinking,

out of the EU, low tax, pro-enterprise, anti-state,

perfectly venerable tradition in but it's politics, it is not one I fully

share, but it represents the Conservative Party. -- in British

politics. He should give way to his inner conservative. What is the

answer? On social policy, the Liberal Party is in favour of

redistribution of wealth. There are some things where we will agree and

some things we will disagree on. I think the good things the Lib Dems

did in the last coalition was sympathising taxation and raising

the tax threshold. I would like more help for the low-paid and unlike the

Lib Dems, we have a policy on taxing inheritances which are a source of

great inequality in British society and using that to pay for choosing

fees that he said he would abolish. There are differences where I agree

with the Lib Dems and differences and similarities were I agree with

the Conservatives but it does not stop me being a liberal and does not

join I will join Tony Blair 's party. How would you tax

inheritance? Get rid of the exemptions. Most people pay no tax

at all. We could apply a modest rate of inheritance tax and we could fund

start-up business grants and we could fund tuition fees and we could

use... You could not fund tuition fees over changes to inheritance

tax, it does not bring in that much. You look at the substantial amount

of people who do not pay any inheritance at all, it would make a

great step towards funding Trish and fees or at least modifying them --

funding tuition fees. Thank you. Now, one of our favourite campaign

pastimes is watching our politicians Chuka Ummuna was down with the dab

at a school in Streatham Tom Watson recently performed this

wants move in the Commons. And Jeremy Corbyn had a laid back

chill out with rapper JME. What do you mean, you have never

heard of him? But as ever, the French had

to get one up on us. Have a look at France's new

president I am just handing nick the prop. Do

you know what these are? My aid-year-old loves this. -- my HQ

roles. I am going to give you this one. -- my eight-year-old loves

this. Have you started using it? Well, I mean, it is quite addictive.

It is. What are they called? Fidget spinners. They are being sold like

hot cakes and the man who invented it is not getting a penny. He did

not secure the Copyright! Can you do tricks? You have got to try. Balance

it on the finger like this and pop it on to the next one. I can't do it

either. I would do it but mine doesn't work! Is it ever worth a

politician trying to be cool? Yes because otherwise it wouldn't give

you hours of amusement watching us fail! Live entertainment! We are

very grateful. Do you think Emmanuel Macron is succeeding? The person who

was the coolest of the cool is Justin Trudeau. And Obama. Justin

Trudeau is... Just time before we go to find out the answer to the quiz.

The question was, which of these election-related photos

It is me. We never released the video which that was fought for very

good reasons. We wanted to know what the reason was? It was so

embarrassing. That is a good reason! Thanks to Nick Clegg

and all our guests. Andrew and I will be back

here at noon tomorrow with all the big political

stories of the day. When it came to my TV habits,

I'd watch anything.