18/05/2017 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May unveils her party's manifesto with a promise that it

will "confront the great challenges of our time".

Will the "ordinary working families" she's hoping to appeal to agree?

There are big changes to the way social care is funded in England

with more people paying for their own care.

How will the proposals go down with older voters?

As the party recommits, again, to reducing net migration

to the "tens of thousands", will making immigration more

expensive for companies and individuals help Theresa May

And in the thick of the election campaign, is it life imitating art?

And much with 10,000 police officers cost? We believe about ?300,000.

10,000 police officers, what are you saying?

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

And with us for the duration today is the satirist and creator

of 'The Thick Of It', Armando Iannucci.

So in the last few minutes the Conservative manifesto has been

published with Theresa May launching it at an event in Halifax

She said it was a manifesto that would confront the "big,

difficult decisions that are right for our country in the long term".

We're still digesting the document of course,

There are big changes in how social care is funded in England.

Currently, anyone with assets - including their home -

of over ?23,250 has to pay the costs of residential care themselves.

Under the Conservatives' plans, that threshold will increase to ?100,000.

But the value of your home will now also be included when assessing

the eligibility for helping paying for care provided in the home.

Under Conservative plans, these people will also have to pay

for that care if they have assets - including their home -

Property will not have to be sold during their lifetime to fund care,

but can be recouped from the value of their estate when they die.

The winter fuel allowance for pensioners, which is a one-off

payment of between ?100-300 a person, will become means-tested.

And the pensions triple lock, which guarantees that state pensions

rise each year by whichever is the highest out of the consumer

price index, average earnings, or 2.5%, has also been axed.

It will become a double lock in 2020, matching either inflation or

average earnings. On immigration, businesses will face

a doubling of the skills charge from ?1,000 to ?2,000 for every

non-EU migrant they employ Non-EU migrants will also have

to pay more to use the NHS, and students will remain

in the immigration statistics. Elsewhere, free school lunches

for all infants will be axed, and replaced with free breakfasts

for all primary school children. And the promise not to increase

income tax, national insurance Let's hear what Theresa May had to

say launching the manifesto in Halifax. It offers a vision for

Britain not just for the next five years but for the years and decades

ahead. A stronger Britain where everyone has the economic security

they need and the chance to live a secure and full life. A more

prosperous Britain where each generation can do wetter than the

last. -- can do better. All of this depends on getting the next five

years right. Make no mistake, the central challenge we face is

negotiating the best deal for Britain in Europe. Our future

prosperity, our place in the world, our standard of living, the

opportunities we want for our children and their children, each

and every one depends on having the strongest possible hand as we enter

those negotiations in order to get the best Brexit deal for families

across this country. If we fail the consequences for Britain and for the

economic security of ordinary working people will be dire. If we

succeed, the opportunities ahead of us are great. Theresa May this

morning launching the Tory manifesto.

Let's talk to our correspondent, Norman Smith, who's been watching

What is jumping out at you? The sense that we are seeing today are

clear and marked change from the Cameron years. This is a very

different Conservative vision and a very different party under Theresa

May, not just in the sense that key, emblematic elements of the Cameron

years are being jumped like the tax lock and pension lock, free school

meals for everyone regardless of income, ending winter fuel allowance

is except for the poorest pensioners, abandoning the idea of

the social care cap, not just because she is junking all that but

the direction of travel. Theresa May is pitching this manifesto at

ordinarily families, at people on lower incomes, and that is a change

from Mr Cameron's focus which was, by and large, on Middle England, the

middle classes, on protecting pensioners. That has gone and has

been put to one side particular with pensioners with Mrs May stressing

the need for intergenerational fairness. White should younger

taxpayers had to pick up the tab for older people to pay for care costs?

Again and again so many if the changes she is introducing, you look

at the field of employment rights, changes to working conditions, to

your right to ask for leave, changes which the TUC described as

promising, these are reforms designed to help people, yes you

have a job and a family and who maybe have a house, but by no

stretch of the imagination are they comfortable Alstead and that is an

entirely different pitch for the Tory party. I'm struck how many

times over the years we have talked about blue conservatism, blue-collar

conservatism but genuinely I think Theresa May has picked that up and

that is what she is trying to deliver with this package, and to

turn her back on that slightly more aspirational approach of David

Cameron. I don't think she is appealing so much to the

aspirational classes, she is appealing to those who are just

getting by and would like to be a bit more certain about their

prospects and their community and future. It is a very different

constituency. And the politics of that as we have been watching some

pictures of Mrs May at the press conference, let's assume she think

it is the right thing to do anyway but politically it helps her to

appeal to seats in the Midlands and the North of England which the

Tories have not had much success in for perhaps the generation. I think

that it absolutely true, there is the obvious tactical move to claw

back Labour voters who she believes frankly have given up on Jeremy

Corbyn. She wants to get them, but it is more than that. I think she

takes the view and the lesson she learned from Brexit was not just

people wanted out of the European Union but she believes Brexit was

also at how all of rage and impotence from ordinarily families

who felt that their views and values were ignored -- a how all -- howl.

She has taken that lesson and is refashioning the approach of the

Tory party to address that constituency and it is a fundamental

repositioning of the Tory party and there will be losers. The losers are

people who are pretty much routinely decide on the dotted line for the

Tories, pensioners in particular are big-time losers. Business, again

traditionally straight down the line Tories, they lose as well not just

with the raft of new employment measures, red tape and regulation

but new taxes and charges on bringing in labour from abroad.

Business will say, hang on, we are trying to grow business and the

economy, there is a labour shortage in the country and we have to bring

people in. Theresa May is saying that is all

very well but people are concerned about immigration and she is

prioritising the Brexit community who are worried about the changing

landscape in Britain and the changing communities which they put

down to large-scale immigration and that, in her mind, comes up for

traditional Tory focus on encouraging business and a

pro-business environment. It is more than just a tactical pitch to take

back Labour voters, it is the lessons of Brexit and the

refashioning of what the Tories stand for and who they represent, at

least that is her view. I keep very much, we will let you go back in and

ask a question! Norman Smith in Anna Firth -- in Halifax.

We're joined now the former Justice Minister, Dominic Raab.

It is a watershed in a different kind of conservatism from Mr

Cameron's version and that chip -- and Mrs Thatcher's? I was struck, I

felt it was a much more optimistic and vicious perspective than Babs

Norman characterised about taking Britain forward but she is certainly

making it clear that there are difficult challenges ahead and we

are saying that the demo -- or the Conservatives have a plan and in

Theresa May the leader to deliver Brexit and make it work for the

country but also deal with the flawed market and makes the cost of

living for lower and middle income families is addressed and critically

dealing with some of the burning social issues which have been

something of a car before too long. Let's look at social care, it is

quite complicated, what is the reasoning? We want to put social

care on a sustainable footing. There are difficult decisions to make like

means testing the winter fuel allowance so that only those who

have more money are not playing, it is focused on the less well off

pensioners, but that allows us to fund sustainable social care and

protect up to ?100,000, the assets of those receiving social care and

the message to finish, is that we want to do the socially responsible

thing for our elderly citizens but without engaging in something which

is reckless for the public finances and that is the prospectus. The cost

is there are a huge number of people who will have their social care

costs increasing. The principle is that if you can afford to pay,

whether from your income or your assets, you should contribute. The

flip side otherwise is that it all in the state and it is the taxpayers

underpinning it. It is a question about balance. So many people have

ducked this. I'm not suggesting people aren't going to come out and

say there are winners and losers and Norman made that point but we are

grappling with this issue and putting on a sustainable footing and

maybe others offering a credible plan for addressing social care.

They will have to play more -- pay more, a number of people, and at the

same time you are abolishing the lifetime cap on how much people will

contribute to social care. They will be paying even more ad that will be

the chronically ill, the most vulnerable, you are taking away the

lifetime cap as well. The key thing is that for the vulnerable and those

on the lowest incomes, we will make sure that the Social Security

cushion if you like is always there. It is those who are more affluent

with assets and income who will be asked to contribute a bit more. Many

poor people will have a property that is worth more than 100,000. Of

course, I know that will be an issue. So the cap on them is going,

their costs will go up as well. If that really fair, the sensible way

with social care already being quite expensive, to take away the cap and

make more people pay more? Where is the progress? The progress is that

social care will be on a sustainable footing. For the government but not

the people who have to pay. People recognised with an ageing population

and the costs that go with it, the Kings fund have done reports on

this, there is a critical balance between your ability to contribute

to your own care costs and asking the taxpayers to foot the bill. You

can strike the balance of different way but nobody else has come up with

a credible plan to put that on a sustainable footing and that is why

I think a lot of pensioners will look at this and think that at least

this is not sustainable. With the extra money going into the NHS we

are dealing with some of these burning social issues. I will come

onto the extra money in a moment, but you're going to make the elderly

pay more for the social care, at least a large number, you are

abandoning the pensions triple lock which is now a double lock, and your

ticket awaits fuel allowances for all but the poorest I would guess

but we don't know what the means test is. Anything else you would

like to hit pensioners with? That is a hat-trick, do you want to go for a

fourth? You pick up the negatives, that is your job but we have

predictably acid of those benefiting from social get up to ?100,000 and

the triple lock is turning into a double lock and we have said that

until 2020 we will protect the triple lock because the state

pension has been so dumbed down under Labour and after that it will

store protected and increase. But in line with prices and wages. What

that does is it puts the state pension, it put social get on a

sustainable footing. Theresa May has said it is not easy, wouldn't relish

having to make difficult decisions but no one out as the leadership to

grapple with this. Let's go to the NHS, huge concern

that not enough money is being given to the NHS and you see here, you do

not get to it until page 66 out of 83 pages of manifesto, page 66, we

will increase NHS spending by a minimum of ?8 billion in real terms

over the next five years, what does that mean? You have the manifesto,

we are saying extra investment will go in at a minimum of ?8 billion,

that is an annual sum. I think people know the Conservatives have

cut the deficit from 152 billion to 52 billion, I don't think anybody

thinks we are not careful custodians with the public finances, that is

what you have just been having a go at me about. I am just seeking

clarification, is this 8 billion on top of the 8 billion you are

currently adding into the NHS? I have been on my way to the studio so

I don't even have the benefits that you have, I have been briefed but it

was only just released... We nor the NHS is one of the biggest issues of

the campaign, I have got the spending figures here from the

Department of Health, in 2014, 2015, the health budget, this is the

Department of Health so I assume it is just England, maybe Wales. It is

your table. It is your government 's table. You fished it out. But that

does not mean I own it. Stop filibustering let's get to the fax.

A billion for the NHS in 2014-15 is what you inherited, on the

projections we have at the moment it rises to 126.5 by 2021, that is the

8 billion the previous government promised, it rises by a little bit

every year to get to the extra 8 billion, is this 8 billion the same

or is it on top of that 8 billion? Since that is your table and you

have read the manifesto but I was on the way here so could not I cannot

answer that. There is additional money going into the NHS. We do not

know that. It's interesting that you choose the figure of 8 billion as it

muddies the waters. In fairness if you invite me on the shore when

Theresa May is on her feet and now they hope the manifesto very tightly

you cannot expect me to have read it. Are you not briefed? Are you not

in the loop? Are you not in the thick of it? Evidently not as in the

loop as you are. I am not in the loop, I don't know what your party

is talking about. It was your party... A 126.5 billion is the

current planned spending by 2021, does this 8 billion mean that by

2021 it will be 134 billion? As with the previous question you know I

don't have that chart for the manifesto. But the headline is 8

billion of new investment going into the NHS. Then it would be 134

billion. We are investing more in the NHS, and reforming it with a

greater focus on mental health and the seven-day NHS. Careful

custodians of the public finances but we won't let people slept

through the cracks who need our support. It's the figures that

matter. I understand that. If we could have this conversation two

hours later I would be able to answer that. On immigration why do

you keep on making a promise you can never keep. We are doubling down on

our commitment to reduce the volume of immigration to tens of thousands,

Brexit lets us get control in areas with EU immigration we have not had

before. What we have set out in the manifesto amongst other things is an

increase in the charge on skills so when employers take in from outside

of the EU foreign workers, actually there is a ?2000 charge the pay and

the balance we are trying to strike is we want employees to be able to

plug the skills gap in the economy but not be able to just bring in

cheap Labour that undercuts the wages of skilled and non-skilled

workers. The target you sent in the 2010 election then the 2015 election

and now again is to get met immigration down below 100000 and

you say Brexit will get it easier to do that but you have always had

control non-EU migration, how much is that at the moment? If you look,

it ebbs and flows but it is broadly 50-50. Even that part of migration

that you have absolute control over you have not been able to get down

to the tens of thousands but you keep on making these promises...

First of all it's not quite true because the EU rules due to some

extent do apply to non-EU nationals because of our rules on

discrimination but you are basically right and we make no bones about

this. We still have to get control of immigration. Brexit presents an

opportunity but there are other issues we will have to address in

relation to non-EU migration and what the skills charge exemplifies

is that yes we need to plug the gaps but we will not have the skill and

volume of immigration that put a strain on housing and public

services and undercuts skilled and low skilled Labour in this country

and their wages. Armando what do you make of all this? This is a big

risk, people will be talking for a long time about her assault on the

elderly if you want to dramatise it because they tend to vote Tory. I

think what she has decided is that it is a risk worth taking was Gene

makes moves not just into the left to pinch some of Ed Miliband 's

policies about energy caps but to the right to hoover up the Ukip

vote. Tough language on immigration that you picked up on, I find it's

almost like being in a dream, you know in a dream you are looking at

one person and they turn into somebody else and they don't bat an

eyelid, sometimes she's a bit Ed Miliband, sometimes she is Nigel

Farage and at other times she is Margaret Thatcher and I find it

fascinating. I think it shows she is taking this large percentage of

voters for granted. She has voted they will not vote for -- she has

assumed they will not vote for Jeremy Corbyn. Yes, so she is making

a loader play for the Brexit, blue-collar vote. I think there are

a quite a few of the elderly voters who want to see things on a stable

footing, a lot of pensioners have got children and grandchildren and

recognise the challenges they face and dealing with that key issue of

our generation, intergenerational fairness, is close to her heart.

There is one thing that is missing from this manifesto, quite a major

omission. I would like you to tell me why, why is there are no apology

to Ed Miliband for all the ideas you disparaged that you have now

included of his in this Tory manifesto? App will I don't think we

are in the business of apologising. You pinched his ideas after calling

them Marxist. Energy Capcom are more money for the NHS. First of all,

more money for the NHS was a promise we made and Labour did not match. Ed

Miliband proposed an energy freeze, not a cap and the difference is

energy companies would hike prices which would legalise consumers, are

is a cap, you can still have competition underneath it but we

will stop the rip-off of consumers. Tougher rules on takeover? I

remember Ed Miliband proposing that. Top rules on corporate pay. Quite a

lot. Theresa May and the Conservatives have been talking

about shareholders exercising more pay -- control over corporate paper

quite some time. What you are showing is that Theresa May is

reaching out to aspirational working and middle class voters and we think

she has the plan and leadership to deliver. Thank you very much Dominic

Ryan. Let's stick with the manifesto.

Let's talk to the Spectator's Fraser Nelson and the Guardian

Polly what do you make of it? She is doing what they always do, heading

for the middle ground, Labour turf, very much like David Cameron dead,

do you remember the foodie hugging, big society, time off for

volunteering, soft and cuddly and all of the rest of it, she's doing

it in a different tone but the same tactic. What we want is to see it

delivered and the hard policies are very few suggesting her heading in

that direction. And Fraser what is your headline take? People wondered

what happened to the editor after the last general election and now we

know it has been reincarnated as this manifesto. There is the

anti-corporate, being portrayed as asset strippers and new rules, quite

significant new rules allowing the Prime Minister to stop takeovers and

significantly she has given herself until the middle of the next decade

to balance the books. George Osborne said it would be 2015 and now she is

seeing 2025, that means Britain will go through something like a quarter

century without having got rid of the deficit. So fiscally I think we

can see lots more spending and not too many worries about how it will

be paid for. Is the politics of this, although she was a remain, she

listened to why people voted for Brexit the Midlands, the North,

traditional Labour voters, and she wants to move into that territory,

take back seats the Tories have not had in the North, elements of a

blue-collar conservatives, will that politically, does it help the Tories

to win seats they probably have not had for a generation? I think it

does, hard Brexit and was very Brexit seats, she is suggesting a

frighteningly hard Brexit, no deal is better than a bad deal terrifies

the city and most conservative backers. Also a lot of it, Labour

have been accused of a fantasy manifesto that if you look at her

pledge on immigration it's impossible, she can go around the

Midlands and tell them she will reduce it to the tens of thousands

but she was Home Secretary and could not do it. We have hundred 54,000

students alone, you go through each category and none of them will say

which category is it that they are going to cut? Which industry will be

hit? The NHS, agriculture? She does not say because it cannot be done

and would be done but it will get her through the election saying that

black is white is black. Have me asking the same questions again and

again like Groundhog Day. Fraser, if you think, if the Conservatives

think that older voters will not vote for Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

Party, if you think you are going to win by a landslide, then maybe you

can take some risks on policies for old-age pensioners? But is that not

still risky? There is still an element of risk in this. Last time I

looked she had something like a 50 point lead over older voters and you

cannot get more impregnable than that. Previously whether it is

Labour or Tory party leaders Bobby had to break the elderly to the

election. She has quite rightly got rid of that but what she has not

done is repair the cuts made to the working age people. She could have

said I am going to restore generational fairness, not to raise

by the pension as much and go easier on the tax credit cuts. She's not

done that which is something I am sad about but she doesn't think she

can break the addiction to bribing the elderly. Polly, finally, there

is a new poll in the standard, the daily Osborne as we call it, which

does show the gap has narrowed, Labour only 15 points behind, is

still some hope for Jeremy Corbyn? Only 15 points, how bad can things

be? The gap was bound to narrow it usually does during elections. We

will see on the day what it means but I don't think many people

seriously think 15 points can suddenly be wiped away, Jeremy

Corbyn today has said that the Tories are hitting the older voters

and Labour have offered ridiculous bribes to older voters and on this

one thing Theresa May is right, to take money from the older richer

people in order, rather than taking it from the poor, to pay for their

own care. Cross dressing both ways. We are big into cross dressing here

so we will end on that note, thank you.

There is an interesting think political here, when the left was

last factored in the 1980s with the social Democrats leaving the Labour

Party, the Thatcher response was to move to the right to put what became

known as the Thatcherite reforms and to push them in. Mrs May is facing a

fractured left in various ways and her response has been removed to the

centre or even centre left. I think it is both ways, right and left. The

most successful crossdressing politician in the last 18 months has

been Donald Trump, who again with a nominally right-wing party but had

said the left wing social views. He caused that amount of confusion

within the electorate and the politicos and got in as a result.

I'm not suggesting Theresa May is our Donald Trump, but she has

learned something from that into making yourself look surprising and

distinctive by confounding expectations. Whether that is

enough... I think in her head she is actually trying to launch the start

of the Conservative Empire. She talked about it being a manifesto

for the next five years and decades afterwards and she sees this empty

centre with the Lib Dems not making much headway and this right-wing

vacated by Ukip and she knows she can hoover up almost 50% of that

area from the centre to the right. That is a strategy I think. It is a

kind of realignment as well, interesting.

Now, we've been wheeling the Daily Politics' balls

Ellie's pushed them across the English border to Carlisle

Where the sun is shining! We are taking a break from the campaign

Trail and the issues specifically affecting the poll on the 8th of

June and instead are talking more generally about general elections.

And the voting age. We are about ten miles away from Scotland where

16-year-olds can vote in certain elections but we are asking if the

voting age in general elections across the UK should be reduced to

16 or stay at 18. When I was 16 I knew

who I wanted to vote for and because all people

are going to die. Do you think 16-year-olds

should have the vote? When I was 16 I wasn't mature

enough to do anything. You're knowledgeable enough

at 16 to know what's going on and want to have a say

in what's going on around the country and world so I think

it's fair to let vote. I have a 12-year-old daughter

and I find it hard to imagine that by the age of 16 she will be ready

to make a decision like that. I'm from Scotland, so I've

worked in the elections, I did the polling clerk there,

quite a few times, and a lot of the younger ones are coming

in with their parents now so it's encouraging to see younger ones

coming in and voting. Were you interested

in politics when you were 16? Because I think if they're allowed

to do lots of other things when they're 16 why not

vote as well? They're eligible to get

married, I've just been I think they mature a lot

between 16 and 18, a lot. Yes, it's surprising

what children do eat. Do you think 16-year-olds

should have the vote? We've shopped around for people's

opinions here in the market and it would seem that if you are 16

going on 17 wanting a say People here think you need to be

18 to have the vote. And Armando Iannucci,

who is campaigning to get more younger people to vote,

is still with us. I was quite encouraged by that

actually. You would like to see it at 16? I think it would help. When I

heard the Scottish in abundance referendum was open to 16-year-olds

I was initially a bit nervous but I thought it had a tremendous impact

-- independence referendum. It introduced a whole generation into

the political debate and for the first on they felt they were taking

part in a conversation that mattered. It introduced them to the

whole world politics and political engagement. It was an interesting

fact that the proportion of 17-year-olds who voted in the

referendum was higher than those in the 18 to 21-year-old bracket. It

energised them. Perhaps the Scottish referendum, which energised every

part of Scotland and the turnout was amazing, that was the exception that

proves the rule. And it was on one issue. Young people are more

engaged, not so much in party politics as in single issue

politics. That is what I think the party political system is a bit of a

turn-off for them. The voting turnout for 18 to 24-year-old in the

last 25 years has gone right down, it used to be about 70% and it's now

about 45% and by find it worrying because if you don't take part in

the first time you are eligible, in the process, it is difficult to

encourage you to take part further down the line. The turnout among 16

and 17-year-olds, for a general election if they had the vote, it's

likely to be pretty low. We don't know, we've never done it before. I

think coupled with that it is important we actually introduce

children and young adults to politics within schools, I don't

mean campaigning, but we get sex education, how to write a CV and

apply for jobs, I think it would be useful, if the vote was extended to

16, there would be a need to open up class is about politics and how the

political system works in the UK. How Parliament works, devolution,

local government. Good luck in getting a neutral teaching view on

that! The Tories used to blame the 1945 election on the Army

information centre! And there is a Tory reluctance. David Cameron was

offered the possible the opening up the EU referendum to 16-year-olds

and he said no because he thought it might put in an anti-Tory bias. It

might have helped him in the referendum! People tend to want

these changes because it suits how they would like people to vote. They

are saying they were more likely to be pro-independence in Scotland. Do

you want this because it would help Labour? No, I'm passionate about

politics, I dislike the fact that consistently over the last 25 years

overall turnouts have gone down both parties have gained majorities,

sometimes quite big majorities on tiny proportions of the population.

I think that it stayed and it leads to frustration and anger and that is

where things get worrying. We have a political system now where most

people who vote will not get the government they voted for and we

have to do something about that. What I say to young people, think

about yourself. The more young people who vote, the more

politicians will listen to them and be aware of them as an important

lobby. Until today, the old vote, the 65 and over, that was a powerful

lobby. The Grey Panthers they used to call in the United States!

Now, throughout the campaign we will be featuring some

of the smaller parties fielding candidates at the general election.

Today it's one of the parties on the hard left of British politics.

The Workers Revolutionary Party is the British section

of the International Committee of the Fourth International,

but produces several publications, including a daily newspaper.

It's campaigning for a Labour government and calls

on supporters to vote Labour where the WRP isn't standing.

It argues that that would best lead the struggle for the British

The party wants an immediate break with the European Union

and a Socialist United States of Europe instead.

It also calls for an end to "British imperialism"

and would redirect defence spending to the public sector.

Let's have a word with Frank Sweeney who is representing the party.

Welcome to the programme. You have said that if there is not a WR P

candidate, vote Labour. Have you done that before? , it is a normal

default position? Yes, it is the normal position we dig, we support

the struggle of the working class against capitalism and the Labour

Party is a working-class party with the origins in the trade unions.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the general Kotze guide

analysis was that the Labour Party was a sell-out to the capitalist

classes? The leadership has sold out. Because of its political

outlook, it is a reformist outlook and if you look at their manifesto

is a Fabian conception that the economic crisis as finished. While

we agreed with things they put in their manifesto, they can't achieve

them without overthrowing capitalism. It is impossible to

achieve those demands within a capitalist society, especially under

such a crisis building up in the economy as there is. And how many

WRP and are you running? Five. Are they spread around? There are four

in London and one in Sheffield. Is London fertile territory for you?

The whole country is. In the campaigns we have that in those

constituencies we have had a fantastic response because while we

have come across on high Street and canvassing door-to-door, a lot of

people who agree with the Labour Party, they don't believe it will be

able to carry through their programme, they agreed with it and

hope it can be carried through but don't believe the Labour Party will

be able to do it. Isn't Trotsky at the 20th century, has his time not

come and gone? No, he is 21st century. Capitalism is 19th century.

Seriously... Where is it in retreat? The economy, the economic crisis of

ten years ago, they are trying to pretend it has gone. Their solution

to a debt crisis, they called it a credit crisis but it was a crisis of

debt, was to increase debt through quantitative easing in all the major

economies. They have made that debt bubble fantastically bigger,

probably 1000 times than in 2008, and it's going to go. As in the

trend been, rather than capitalist countries moving to become more like

you would like them to be, but the other way round, Marxist countries

have become more capitalist thinking of Russia and China. I don't know

where you have been living but what has been going on in the last few

years in the world? What has happened in France in the last few

weeks with the two main capitalist parties, the Republican Party and

the Socialist party... They are in huge decline, they elected a

neoliberal instead. But he has got nothing. He hasn't got a party, he

is relying on the old political parties to give him support. And 4

million young people in France refused, they hate Marine Le Pen

antifascist movement but they refused to vote for Macron because

they don't agree because he is part of the old establishment. But Mrs Le

Pen got the largest number of young voters of any party. That's because

of the disillusionment with bourgeois politics. One more thing,

I'm wondering where the world is going in your direction? Towards

revolution. But where? All over the globe, if you look in America, in

South America, Africa, Europe, the European Union is disintegrating

before our eyes. Frank Sweeney, thank you, don't go yet! Relax. We

talked about the Conservative Party manifesto this morning.

Here's Emma with our campaign round-up.

Scottish Labour has suspended all nine members of the Labour group in

Aberdeen for its coalition arrangement on the council with the

Conservatives saying this breached party rules. There is currently now

no councillors in office in Aberdeen representing Labour. Suspicions have

been raised that after the election they may be back in the fold and

things may go back to normal. Tweeting inspirational quote is all

very well but make sure the person actually said them. Jeremy Corbyn

was caught at treating a fake quote attributed to Nye Bevan, the famous

are to get the NHS, allotment shed message that the word actually

originate from a 90s television play. Boris Johnson said sorry after

a remark in a campaign visit to seek gurdwara in Bristol, saying that a

future Conservative government would end tariffs on India's input of

British whiskey. Alcohol is an issue. Let me... The woman said it

was a credit to promote alcohol inside their place of worship. Mr

Johnson apologised but said he was making a good point about trade. A

Ukip candid in Derby has described his own party's immigration policy

as stupid as in -- and impractical. I'm a great fan of Indian food,

where would we be without the band with a chic chefs? Speaking to BBC

radio, Bill Piper undersized Paul Nuttall's aim of cutting net

migration to zero with a one in, one out policy -- criticised. George

Osborne's Evening Standard criticised Theresa May for the aim

of reducing net migration to the tens of thousands a year, calling it

literally crash and Broken down battle bus spotted last

night with engine trouble. And who is this calling the shots? Former

Labour leader Ed Miliband stepping in as a bingo caller to entertain

pensioners. Some said he found his true calling.

Let's get back to our main story now, that's the launch

There are some big changes to the funding

There are also changes to the party's commitments

of taxation as well as the promise of more money for the NHS.

Well, I'm joined now by Paul Johnson of the Institute

Talking to Dominic Crabb earlier but he had not been fully briefed on the

situation, there is at the moment an extra 8 billion going into the NHS

over five years, or actually six from 2014-15 to 2020-21, going from

118 billion to 126 billion, is the 8 billion they talk about on page 66,

is that on top of this? My understanding is that compared with

two day what the Conservatives are saying is there will be an 8 billion

real increase in funding in five years' time. Most of that on top of

the current 8 billion. Most of that has come through but not all of it.

The most interesting thing about these numbers is that it looks like

Labour and the Conservatives are on the same page, if you look at their

manifestos in term of NHS spending commitments five years down the road

they have presented them in different terms but they look

similar. There is not much to choose between them. That is interesting

because that must be calculated, how they are bonded we do not know and

we have asked Labour are a lot of questions how they will fund it so

the Tory would have do explain as well, but if they are able to fund

it and it will now be 8 billion on top of 126 billion... I take it as

an top of whatever we are spending now. Now we are spending almost 124,

so up to 132. That would to some extent take the wind out of Labour's

sales on NHS spending if this is accurate. The Labour promises on the

NHS were very modest. We have had an incredibly tight seven years for NHS

spending and if you take these numbers or the Labour Party numbers

we are looking at an increase over the next five years which up this

tight period is much tighter than the NHS has had over the last 40 or

50 years on average. The difference between the two is you could not put

much between them. Social care is very complicated, what you make of

the changes proposed? It is pretty complex and we need to compare what

they are proposing with the world we are in and their own legislation

from a couple of years ago which was going to change things more

substantially. Where we are, this is going to be helpful to people going

into residential care because they will not lose everything down to

23,000, they will lose everything down to 100,000, that will leave

people with something behind but for some people who are having council

paid care in their home at the moment they will have to start

paying for that but importantly the payment comes from the estate, not

upfront. Saw the taxpayer through the local council continues to pay

and then gets refunded after the person has died? That is my

understanding. You are racking up an account against the value of your

house and if you don't have a house you get the social care anyway. That

is my understanding of how it works, the people who pay in the end are

the people who will inherit less otherwise than they would have done.

My understanding from the Labour manifesto was the simply talked

about the amount of extra money they would spend on social care. I did

not look at it in detail but I did not understand them to have

significantly changed the structure of social care. Would this be a risk

with the elderly vote which is pretty solidly Tory? One, it always

turns out, the way younger people don't quite, and it does skew

strongly Tory, if it's complicated, it may be hard to explain what you

have in store. I think it might be difficult to explain, there are some

trade-offs here, you see it through the manifesto. The Conservatives are

saying we would spend more on social care because we will protect more of

the assets of people bound to about 100,000 but they are actually saying

we will paper that by reducing the winter fuel allowance. Does that

save a lot? Billion and a half. You will still get it? We don't know but

I assume those who are still on pension credit, the poor persons.

That's my understanding but we don't have the details. But there are

choices in each bit in terms of saying we will stop free school

meals for 5-6 -year-olds and give free breakfasts to all primary

school pupils. So you can see choices made. They are taking away

hot meals and it's going to be called breakfasts. Muesli, not baked

beans? I am struggling to understand the social care line and the fact

you are both experts and trying to get it together I think it will go

over very badly. When will we get your analysis of the Tory manifesto

tax and spend? We are having an event on Tuesday where we will go

through all the manifestos. I will see you there, thank you. Our guest

of the day Armando Ianucci is perhaps best known as the creator of

the political sire The Thick Of It, but judging by the evidence from the

last three weeks of this campaign, it seems it was more fact than

fiction. Have you heard the big news about Jeremy Paxman? How much with

10,000 police officers cost? We believe about ?300,000. ?300,000,

10,000 police officers? If you ask a journalist to avoid the topic that

is when they go for it, it's like telling the school bully you will

wet yourself if you tickle me. How many people would this give a pay

rise to? A couple, I would confess. Any piercings? You have got some

piercings. Earrings! I've got pierced ears! You have nurses going

to food banks, that must be wrong. There are many complex reasons why

people go to food banks. This is Jeremy Paxman, what will you do when

he pulls that big rubbery horse face of mock incredulity at you? At the

end of parliament it will be lower than it is today. Using what metric?

It would be lower in absolute terms, you'll add every year. He is like an

enormous check-in. One of the solution packages, my solution...

What is the deficit at the moment? If I can say to you... You don't

know. What is the deficit at the moment? It sounded like someone was

passingly a bit of paper. Not that all. Even though everyone knows they

have links with sweatshops? You did not answer when they asked if you

thought gay sex was a sin. I have been asked this a lot. Try and get

Peter to do something inoffensive. How much is ages to costing. ?32

billion. Not 52 billion? You are here to here. I did meet President

Assad. You celebrated his re-election. That is what the

reception was for, to celebrate his re-election. Why have you got wet

trousers? There was no clear manifesto for what happened on our

membership to the single market. The Remain campaign said we would leave

it if we voted out. I am sorry but we have to leave it there. CHUCKLES

That last one is amazing, even that did not happen in the The Thick Of

It. I am joined now by John McTernan, is

life imitating art? It is to an extent, I worked for Henry McLeish

in Scotland and he once stood up in Parliament and said this is not

rocket fuel. People have been making mistakes as long as there has been

politics. The beauty of the The Thick Of It is that it became right

indistinguishable. We did not swear as much but it described the panic

and frustration, the politicians in front of camera are the talent and

when they are in front of the camera at the advisor can do nothing.

Except in the case of the Lib Dems. Even you did not scrap that bit

where a politician is hauled out. We would sometimes reject ideas because

it was too fantastic. What did you think when you saw the tape, if you

wear, if you are not who you are, if you are just an ordinary voter you

would not know what was The Thick Of It and what was the interview? Thank

you very much. We based on what we see. You can take a tape from ten

years ago political interviews and compile something as much a

catastrophe as you watch now. In many respects we have a bit of

sympathy for the politician in that they are expected to be absolutely

coherent and number ready and fact ready at any time of day or night

and it's quite an impossible imposition to put on them. In which

case it may be better to say I don't know. That's the thing, politicians

to scored well with the public are the ones who own up more readily.

Also now compare to 20 years ago there are more opportunities to trip

up, more news channels, more channels, more political programmes,

big interviews used to be few and far between but they are commonplace

now. That is true that equally the more interviews the do the more

practice you should be getting, political interviews are a genre.

Coming on to your show and not knowing the facts is like painting a

target on your forehead. You have to actually read the briefing. I have

heard the story, people went to Diane Abbott before she did her

media rounds and said he is the briefing note and she said I don't

need it, I have got the political lines. You have to do your homework.

Anderson the interviewer has done their homework. The problem is we

are all journalists, it's not just TV interviews any more. Thank you

very much John McTernan and Armando Ianucci.

The One O'clock News is starting over on BBC One now.

I'll be on BBC One tonight with Michael Portillo,

Ed Balls, James Delingpole, Miranda Green, Nahalie Bennett,

Polly McKenzie and the rapper Doc Brown on This Week

And Jo will be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political stories