:00:40. > :00:47.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:48. > :00:49.Labour go on the offensive, attacking the Conservatives'
:00:50. > :00:51.manifesto plans as a "savage attack on vulnerable pensioners".
:00:52. > :00:53.A day after Theresa May launched her manifesto
:00:54. > :00:55.for Britain, Forward, Together, we'll assess
:00:56. > :00:56.the Conservatives' plans for government.
:00:57. > :00:59.What's the right level of immigration for Britain,
:01:00. > :01:04.We'll hear from the boss of a new think tank which argues
:01:05. > :01:08.for a net immigration target of at least 200,000.
:01:09. > :01:10.And we'll profile the real star of the election
:01:11. > :01:11.night results programme, the tried-and-tested
:01:12. > :01:19.If the swing, for example, is one point consistently,
:01:20. > :01:22.and on the average to the Conservatives,
:01:23. > :01:25.they are not only in again, but they will have an increased
:01:26. > :01:38.And with me for the whole of the programme today,
:01:39. > :01:40.Sam Coates of the Times, and Hilary Wainwright,
:01:41. > :01:42.founder and editor of the left-wing magazine Red Pepper.
:01:43. > :01:48.Let's start with last night's election debate on ITV,
:01:49. > :01:50.featuring five opposition leaders but not Theresa May
:01:51. > :01:59.The Brexit negotiations between Brussels and London over
:02:00. > :02:02.these next few months will lead to outcomes that none of us can
:02:03. > :02:07.And that means at the end, you should have the final say.
:02:08. > :02:15.There were no clarity as to what Leave actually meant.
:02:16. > :02:17.Theresa May is not just pursuing Brexit.
:02:18. > :02:18.She is pursuing a hard, extreme Brexit.
:02:19. > :02:20.People voted to leave the European Union.
:02:21. > :02:22.They didn't just vote to control our borders.
:02:23. > :02:30.Are the people who work in our NHS the best in the world?
:02:31. > :02:34.Is our NHS the best funded in the world?
:02:35. > :02:46.Have I? I'm sorry about that.
:02:47. > :02:48.There's no need to put up taxation to pay for this.
:02:49. > :02:51.We can simply take it from the foreign aid budget.
:02:52. > :02:53.Take it from the poorest people in the world.
:02:54. > :03:03.Very briefly, Nicola Sturgeon and then Tim Farron.
:03:04. > :03:06.Paul is talking about taking resources from some of the poorest
:03:07. > :03:09.We contribute through foreign aid, not just to help the poorest
:03:10. > :03:12.people in the world, which I think as it happens
:03:13. > :03:15.is the right thing to do, but also to make this country safer.
:03:16. > :03:18.Paul says that is where he wants to get the money.
:03:19. > :03:20.The question he still hasn't answered, if he's going to stop EU
:03:21. > :03:23.migration, where is he getting the staff for the
:03:24. > :03:33.summer the highlights from last night. Who were the winners and
:03:34. > :03:39.losers? Sam? -- some of the highlights. I did not watch the
:03:40. > :03:42.entire thing, after a long day at Halifax, covering the Conservative
:03:43. > :03:47.manifesto. What you had last night were politicians who most people in
:03:48. > :03:52.the country cannot vote for, so it is hard to ascribe winners when
:03:53. > :03:58.really Tim Farron is the only national politicians. Ukip bar only
:03:59. > :04:06.standing in 400 or so seats cash are. The greens are standing in
:04:07. > :04:11.around 500. It is a cure is, says Jim. Nicola Sturgeon did well, she's
:04:12. > :04:13.a good performer in the circumstances -- it was a key areas
:04:14. > :04:24.conversation. Did you think that Theresa May and
:04:25. > :04:30.Jeremy Corbyn made the right decision in not taking part? Theresa
:04:31. > :04:33.May is determined to not be accountable, to not be questioned,
:04:34. > :04:37.and when she was questioned on the streets it was a very awkward
:04:38. > :04:40.exchange. The fact that she would not be debated, even David Cameron
:04:41. > :04:48.was willing to be debated and joined in a debate with all of them. Jeremy
:04:49. > :04:53.Corbyn had to expose that fact. Ed Miliband did take part last time?
:04:54. > :04:59.Because David Cameron did. It was a proper debate about who was going to
:05:00. > :05:04.be in government, but now with Theresa May disappearing, it is not
:05:05. > :05:07.a debate. I missed Jeremy Corbyn's argument, because there was one
:05:08. > :05:11.woman who was talking about making ends meet and no one mentioned the
:05:12. > :05:17.importance of unions and workers being organised to get decent wages.
:05:18. > :05:24.But I understand why he didn't do it. Do you think they made the right
:05:25. > :05:30.tackle ageing? -- the right cancellation? It was hard to get
:05:31. > :05:33.them to turn up in that kind of format, but you do want the people
:05:34. > :05:38.who are potentially the next Prime Minister to appear before the public
:05:39. > :05:43.in an election campaign, and that is right and fair, so, come on guys,
:05:44. > :05:46.get it together, we want to see you together. Natalie also made an
:05:47. > :05:49.appearance, whoever she is! The question for today is,
:05:50. > :05:54.how has Donald Trump described the investigation into alleged
:05:55. > :05:56.collusion between his presidential At the end of the show Sam
:05:57. > :06:05.and Hilary will give So, 24 hours on from the publication
:06:06. > :06:15.of the Conservative manifesto, and our back-room team here have
:06:16. > :06:18.been busy reading all 84 pages So what are the big changes
:06:19. > :06:28.Theresa May is proposing compared The manifesto moves the target
:06:29. > :06:32.for balancing the budget to 2025, back from the current aim
:06:33. > :06:34.of "as early as possible The current "tax triple lock",
:06:35. > :06:44.which pledges no increases in income tax, national insurance
:06:45. > :06:46.or VAT, will be ditched As for the "pensions triple-lock",
:06:47. > :06:51.which guarantees that state pensions rise each year
:06:52. > :06:55.by whichever is the highest out of the consumer price index,
:06:56. > :06:59.average earnings or 2.5%, the manifesto lays out that it
:07:00. > :07:02.will become a "Double Lock" in 2020, tracking either inflation
:07:03. > :07:06.or average earnings. The Winter Fuel Allowance
:07:07. > :07:10.for pensioners, the annual one-off payment of between ?100-300
:07:11. > :07:12.per person, would Under a Conservative government
:07:13. > :07:23.those needing social care in old age will be now able to retain ?100,000
:07:24. > :07:29.in assets before paying for care, up from the previous floor of ?23,250,
:07:30. > :07:32.although the value of their property The manifesto also pledges a minimum
:07:33. > :07:38.?8 billion real terms increase in the budget for NHS
:07:39. > :07:45.England by 2022. Free school lunches for infants
:07:46. > :07:50.in England would be replaced by free breakfasts for all
:07:51. > :07:54.primary school children. There is a guarantee that no school
:07:55. > :07:59.will have its budget cut under the new national
:08:00. > :08:01.funding formula. And the ban on setting
:08:02. > :08:03.up new grammar schools The second part of
:08:04. > :08:06.the Leveson Inquiry, which would investigate the culture,
:08:07. > :08:10.pratices and ethics of the press, would be scrapped in the event
:08:11. > :08:15.of a Conservative victory. And, the yet-to-be-activated
:08:16. > :08:17.Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2014,
:08:18. > :08:19.which would force newspapers to pay their opponent's legal costs
:08:20. > :08:22.linked to libel and privacy actions, And finally the Fixed
:08:23. > :08:25.Terms Parliament Act, which introduced fixed-terms
:08:26. > :08:29.elections to the UK parliament, will also be repealed
:08:30. > :08:32.under a Tory government. We asked the Conservative Party
:08:33. > :08:35.for a minister but none Instead we are joined
:08:36. > :08:41.by Rupert Harrison, George Osborne's former Chief of Staff who now works
:08:42. > :08:55.at the investment management Why were there no costings in this
:08:56. > :08:59.manifesto? That is a good question. When you are the party in
:09:00. > :09:04.government, you have huge dominance on economic competence. You don't
:09:05. > :09:07.need costings, they figure they can get away with it, everyone assumes
:09:08. > :09:11.they are in power and it will dealt with in the budget. You can ask them
:09:12. > :09:16.questions but I suppose they can get away with it. Doesn't it show a
:09:17. > :09:21.level of arrogance to the voting public? When you have repeatedly
:09:22. > :09:27.criticised Labour for not having detailed costings, which they have
:09:28. > :09:33.now provided, that you can get away with no tax and spending plans in
:09:34. > :09:37.detail? That is a little unfair. The central characteristic of the
:09:38. > :09:42.manifesto, it was quite brave, an impressive attempt to do something
:09:43. > :09:47.difficult things. The Labour Party is doing a classic attack on winter
:09:48. > :09:50.fuel payments and social care reforms, but these are quite brave
:09:51. > :09:55.and difficult things to put in the manifesto. They could have gone for
:09:56. > :10:00.vote maximisation strategy to win at all costs. The opposing Eichmann,
:10:01. > :10:07.they could have been more radical? -- the opposing argument. Just focus
:10:08. > :10:12.on the figures. If you are producing a manifesto that doesn't add up or
:10:13. > :10:17.we can't tell if it does, people will ask questions about your
:10:18. > :10:20.competence? You earn competence in government by demonstrating what you
:10:21. > :10:27.do and the fact the deficit is down... But not eliminated as George
:10:28. > :10:30.Osborne said. They have brought themselves more wriggle room on the
:10:31. > :10:34.fiscal side by pushing out the deadline for getting back to a
:10:35. > :10:38.surplus which can absorb any issues that they have around costings. I
:10:39. > :10:43.don't think this will be the major weakness of this manifesto. They can
:10:44. > :10:47.weather any attacks. Let's have a look at the tax and spending
:10:48. > :10:52.implications. The triple tax lock was brought in and David Cameron and
:10:53. > :10:57.the George Osborne has been abandoned -- under. So we will
:10:58. > :11:05.expect tax rises? This is a brave and right decision. It was a gimmick
:11:06. > :11:09.when they used it, David Cameron? I wouldn't use that word, but it was a
:11:10. > :11:13.bad policy born of a tight election. Having a new Prime Minister and a
:11:14. > :11:18.large lead in the polls means you can get rid of some barnacles and I
:11:19. > :11:25.think the tax lock was a barnacle, like the winter chill payment, which
:11:26. > :11:29.was -- winter fuel payment, which was something David Cameron felt he
:11:30. > :11:36.should promise on. It reduces flexibility for the dead thing we
:11:37. > :11:44.should expect large tax rises. -- I don't think. It is more around, you
:11:45. > :11:48.saw the way they got tripped up on the national insurance rise. I don't
:11:49. > :11:54.think they are planning some huge tax rise. The Institute for Fiscal
:11:55. > :12:04.Studies said the Conservatives will have to ?40 billion, so we can
:12:05. > :12:07.expect tax rises? That can be achieved by the spending plans which
:12:08. > :12:12.are already in place and hopefully if the economy continues growing,
:12:13. > :12:15.there is natural economic growth. I don't think there's a Big Apple to
:12:16. > :12:23.be filled, I don't think that the reason. -- I don't think there's a
:12:24. > :12:30.big gap. Talking about social care, as one of the brave proposals, in
:12:31. > :12:33.your words, does it go far enough? There are two different issues in
:12:34. > :12:37.social care and I don't think it deals with one of them but it deals
:12:38. > :12:44.with the other. It doesn't deal with the idea of insurance. Generally we
:12:45. > :12:47.are able to insure against catastrophes, the NHS against
:12:48. > :12:52.illnesses, we can insure against our house burning down, for example, but
:12:53. > :12:59.we can't insure against needing care in old age. The options are private
:13:00. > :13:08.insurance, and that is what we reforms were about, that capping
:13:09. > :13:13.that, and... The last manifesto said that was going to be lamented. That
:13:14. > :13:22.was untested and that was always a bit of a gamble -- said that was
:13:23. > :13:25.going to be implemented. Both of these are very difficult for
:13:26. > :13:29.different reasons and they have chosen not to really go for either.
:13:30. > :13:34.They have gone for a progressive reform of the way that the means
:13:35. > :13:37.test works and that is going to release a fair amount of resources
:13:38. > :13:43.to social care which is the other big issue. A large number of people
:13:44. > :13:50.are going to have their care costs go up. More people are going to pay,
:13:51. > :13:57.that is why it is brave. It is very clear that that is the system.
:13:58. > :14:04.?100,000, that is not as I as it was under David Cameron, which was
:14:05. > :14:07.?118,000? -- not as high. I think that is quite clever, it says you
:14:08. > :14:14.are not going to have to go down to your last pennies. It has created a
:14:15. > :14:18.new regional postcode lottery. Areas with low house prices, people get
:14:19. > :14:23.state support very quickly, because when the assets fall below ?100,000,
:14:24. > :14:28.but in London and the south-east, most homeowners will not get a penny
:14:29. > :14:31.towards their care. Those homeowners have benefited hugely from the
:14:32. > :14:37.increase in house prices, you could say. This is something which has
:14:38. > :14:43.been needed to be done, and people have been nervous about it but now
:14:44. > :14:47.we have a window with a popular Prime Minister and they are now
:14:48. > :14:52.using this for something. Is it a brave thing? At least Theresa May
:14:53. > :14:56.has dipped her toe in the water on social care and she has gone for a
:14:57. > :15:02.model, even if you don't like it. How will this be received? This
:15:03. > :15:06.manifesto is a very rational manifesto, it is a manifesto to be
:15:07. > :15:10.implemented after an election but not ideal during the election
:15:11. > :15:16.campaign because somethings have the potential to be quite unpopular. I'm
:15:17. > :15:18.struck this morning that this complicated social care proposal is
:15:19. > :15:25.already being talked about at the school gate. They are calling this
:15:26. > :15:30.the dementia tax. Exactly, and the prospect of people paying much more
:15:31. > :15:32.is a concept that voters can quickly understand and that could be fairly
:15:33. > :15:39.traumatic for the Conservative Party if that causes a big reaction.
:15:40. > :15:49.It must mean that Theresa May feels very confident, to put such a risky
:15:50. > :15:53.proposal like this to voters, it is a gamble? I think the whole
:15:54. > :16:00.manifesto shows an incredible hubris overconfidence. The language,
:16:01. > :16:06.referring to manifesto commitments as barnacles. A manifesto is meant
:16:07. > :16:10.to be a way in which people can be caught to account, prime ministers
:16:11. > :16:17.and governments. So they need to be specific. And this isn't. It was
:16:18. > :16:20.like an elegant, not that elegant, fluent, political try from a
:16:21. > :16:25.postgraduate student. There was no actual specifics, sides this one on
:16:26. > :16:30.social care. On social capital I think the key thing is addressing
:16:31. > :16:35.the question of actual care, what has happened to local authorities,
:16:36. > :16:39.old people's homes, the cuts to local authorities meaning that those
:16:40. > :16:43.homes are actually really poor quality, workers are not being
:16:44. > :16:47.valued, skilled, trained, so actually, there is no adequate care.
:16:48. > :16:51.And that needs to be addressed to go and is it not masking the fact that
:16:52. > :16:54.there have been swingeing cuts to local authorities, and therefore now
:16:55. > :17:01.the onus will be on people who have valuable assets? I don't think it
:17:02. > :17:06.makes sense to critique the manifesto for posing political
:17:07. > :17:11.risks, and also being vague. I think it has big, controversial things in
:17:12. > :17:15.it. Also, when thinking about how the public will respond, yes, there
:17:16. > :17:20.will probably be a political cost, and in that sense it reminds me a
:17:21. > :17:26.little bit of 2010 and the Conservative manifesto then, about
:17:27. > :17:30.raising the state pension age and things, I think it probably did cost
:17:31. > :17:34.us votes, but it was worth it for the authority it gave us to then go
:17:35. > :17:39.on and do different things. But it has got to work, though, hasn't it?
:17:40. > :17:45.But I think also, you get rewarded for honesty. People will say, here's
:17:46. > :17:51.a politician who is not playing games, she is telling us some
:17:52. > :17:54.difficult truths. The voters... But she is also potentially asking a lot
:17:55. > :18:01.more people to pay a lot more for their care? But as you say, they see
:18:02. > :18:04.the need. Well, do they? If you look at the means testing of the winter
:18:05. > :18:09.fuel allowance, how much will that raise but with a number I have seen
:18:10. > :18:20.is 1.7 billion, I don't know. It depends on the level. But again, it
:18:21. > :18:25.is an irony, in a way. It is an extremely progressive way to raise
:18:26. > :18:29.money for something which is badly needed. I don't think it is
:18:30. > :18:34.progressive, because the point about the original idea was universal
:18:35. > :18:39.provision. And that enabled people to... There's very vivid figures on
:18:40. > :18:42.the numbers of people who just do not claim because of means testing,
:18:43. > :18:47.and that is what Beveridge was trying to... The point is, it is
:18:48. > :18:51.taking money from better off people to find something which helps
:18:52. > :18:56.everyone. But that is done through the tax system. I am not rich, but
:18:57. > :19:00.my winter fuel allowance and my pension is all part of my tax and I
:19:01. > :19:05.get taxed on it so it goes back into the system. So actually, it is
:19:06. > :19:08.sneaky to say, we're going to be brave and cut the winter fuel
:19:09. > :19:12.allowance. Firstly, a lot of older people do not claim it. And more
:19:13. > :19:19.people will end up not claiming it, though. Anybody wealthy is taxed on
:19:20. > :19:24.it anyway, so it goes back into the system. So actually, it is not
:19:25. > :19:27.really a practical measure. Better off people, otherwise known as
:19:28. > :19:31.Conservative voters, I have got Tory MPs and saying, we have got a social
:19:32. > :19:38.care problem potentially, we are using free school meals for infants,
:19:39. > :19:43.how does this manifesto help, rather than hurt? We have got another three
:19:44. > :19:47.weeks of this, it is not terribly useful.
:19:48. > :19:49.Labour have been on the attack this morning, at a press conference
:19:50. > :19:51.in central london the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell,
:19:52. > :19:53.branded the Conservative manifesto's proposals for pensioners
:19:54. > :20:05.Let me just mention the issue with regard to older people.
:20:06. > :20:06.Yesterday, the Conservative Party abandoned older people.
:20:07. > :20:16.The tearing-up of the triple lock, the attack on the winter fuel
:20:17. > :20:18.allowance, and yes, the plans on care costs
:20:19. > :20:25.I just want to mention the issue around the winter fuel allowance.
:20:26. > :20:31.I'm one of those people who campaigned against fuel poverty
:20:32. > :20:34.for a number of years and welcomed the introduction of
:20:35. > :20:39.And we've been joined by Labour's election campaign
:20:40. > :20:52.Welcome back to The Daily Politics. Listening to Rupert Harrison, this
:20:53. > :20:57.is a progressive measure in terms of social care and means testing, and
:20:58. > :21:01.something which should be applauded? I am proud of the record that the
:21:02. > :21:04.Labour government had in lifting 900,000 elderly people out of
:21:05. > :21:08.poverty. That is a record to be proud of, and in part we did that
:21:09. > :21:12.through measures like the winter fuel allowance. I think it is a
:21:13. > :21:15.retrograde step. As we have already heard, the progressive way of
:21:16. > :21:19.dealing with the winter fuel allowance is to make sure that those
:21:20. > :21:22.wealthy pensioners have it clawed back through the taxation system.
:21:23. > :21:28.But why is it not progressive to make those who are better off pay a
:21:29. > :21:33.bit more or get a bit less from the state? Let's look at the winter fuel
:21:34. > :21:37.allowance first of all - why should richer pensioners get it? Well, we
:21:38. > :21:41.want to make sure that everybody who qualifies for the winter fuel
:21:42. > :21:46.allowance gets it. The problem with means testing, as we've heard is
:21:47. > :21:51.that there are a sizeable number of people who do not apply for
:21:52. > :21:55.means-tested things. For example, like the pension credits, there are
:21:56. > :22:02.about a third of pensioners who are eligible for pension credit who... I
:22:03. > :22:08.take that point, we have said that. But as a principle, do you agree
:22:09. > :22:11.that it is a progressive way to look at this particular aspect? What is
:22:12. > :22:16.progressive is making sure that all pensioners at the winter fuel
:22:17. > :22:19.allowance and clawing back the additional money from the richest
:22:20. > :22:23.pensioners to the taxation system. Because actually, what is being
:22:24. > :22:27.talked about here are around 10 million pensioners, potentially
:22:28. > :22:30.losing their winter fuel allowance, part of the 12 million pensioners
:22:31. > :22:37.that get it. That's not progressive, that is an attack on pensioners.
:22:38. > :22:41.Let's have a look at the pensions triple lock, because now the
:22:42. > :22:47.Conservative manifesto is saying it will be a triple look until 2020,
:22:48. > :22:51.followed by a double lock. Why did you not do something similar, why
:22:52. > :22:54.are you gold-plating it, when young people are struggling to go to
:22:55. > :23:02.college, or even to get on the housing ladder? I'm sure you know,
:23:03. > :23:05.it is not either or. We want to make sure that young people are looked
:23:06. > :23:10.after and that's why we are committed to building homes and...
:23:11. > :23:13.Why are you gold-plating a guarantee for better of pensioners, the triple
:23:14. > :23:19.lock? Because the pensioners today have made this country what it is
:23:20. > :23:24.and I think we should owe them a guarantee that whatever is the
:23:25. > :23:28.highest, prices, wages or 2.5%, they are guaranteed that in their
:23:29. > :23:33.pension. I understand the policy, what I'm saying is, why do you
:23:34. > :23:37.believe that it is the right thing to do, to continue the pensions
:23:38. > :23:43.triple lock, when in fact the double lock would serve pretty well as
:23:44. > :23:48.well? In fact, the double lock would have resulted in the same cohort of
:23:49. > :23:54.pensioners receiving ?330 less. So, of course, for those pensioners, the
:23:55. > :23:56.pensions triple lock has actually served them well in the past. We
:23:57. > :24:02.want to give them the confidence that in the future, they will have
:24:03. > :24:06.the same guarantees. What about the care proposals, are they not
:24:07. > :24:10.progressive? Well, we support a cap on social care provision Google at
:24:11. > :24:14.what level? We have said that we will have a cross-party review in
:24:15. > :24:23.the next Parliament. We have, we had to do my proposal. Social care, as
:24:24. > :24:28.you have said yourselves, is already cut to the bone so why can't you
:24:29. > :24:36.give me a cap level? Well, that has to be discussed. What we are talking
:24:37. > :24:39.about is ?8 billion extra into adult social care, ?1 billion immediately
:24:40. > :24:46.in the first year, not least to help raise the wages of those people who
:24:47. > :24:54.are working in pretty shocking conditions on 15 minute, zero-hours
:24:55. > :24:58.contracts. What about a proposal which puts more of the burden on
:24:59. > :25:03.people with broad shoulders, people with ?100,000 or less in assets will
:25:04. > :25:08.get the same? Because we think a cap is a fairer way of doing it. This is
:25:09. > :25:14.an attack on elderly people. Not the poorest, who you claim to help? We
:25:15. > :25:18.do not support the Conservatives' proposals, let me make that clear.
:25:19. > :25:22.We will discuss an appropriate cap level in the next Parliament. What
:25:23. > :25:26.do you think about this more Universalist approach by Labour,
:25:27. > :25:32.compared to what the Tories would say is a more progressive look? I
:25:33. > :25:38.think universalism is progressive. Beverage after all was not from
:25:39. > :25:45.Labour, he was a rather patronising liberal! But he believed in that
:25:46. > :25:50.universal provision, because you get the funds through a proper taxation
:25:51. > :25:56.system which means taxing inheritance, taxing wealth, taxing
:25:57. > :26:02.corporate games. These are to some extent assets, aren't they? Yes, but
:26:03. > :26:05.it could have been done more systematically, without the means
:26:06. > :26:09.test, that's the point. That is what is good about the Labour manifesto,
:26:10. > :26:12.that there is a clear reversal of all these concessions to the
:26:13. > :26:19.wealthy, people who have got unearned wealth. If you attack those
:26:20. > :26:27.with a progressive tax system, which can then find a universal provision
:26:28. > :26:30.and actual care... What about the fact, Andrew Gwynne is saying they
:26:31. > :26:33.have still not decided on a cap level, is it still credible to be
:26:34. > :26:39.talking about proposals and cross-party talks, wanting more
:26:40. > :26:44.talks, about this issue? The problem with setting is a cap is that you
:26:45. > :26:48.have got to work out where the money will come from. Labour are kicking
:26:49. > :26:57.that down the road and it is interesting, what Labour have done
:26:58. > :27:01.today. Actually, pretty much, Labour have landed on a weak spot for the
:27:02. > :27:06.Conservatives, social care and winter fuel. They have hit them hard
:27:07. > :27:10.this morning in a way which has actually impressed but a few Tories
:27:11. > :27:14.that I have been speaking to. But on the possible, in order to make their
:27:15. > :27:18.argument, Labour is this morning having to argue against means
:27:19. > :27:22.testing. John McDonnell is having to say that I don't think means testing
:27:23. > :27:27.for winter fuel allowance is a good idea. That opens up difficult
:27:28. > :27:32.costumes for Labour, such as, why should John McDonnell get the winter
:27:33. > :27:36.fuel allowance? That's because you asked him. That's because I asked
:27:37. > :27:44.him at the press conference. There is another issue, though, on
:27:45. > :27:48.universalism versus means testing - if you do believe in that, which is
:27:49. > :27:53.perfectly credible, will he be restoring child benefit? Look, we
:27:54. > :27:57.are where we are with that particular benefit. Either you
:27:58. > :27:59.believe in the principle of universalism, all you don't?
:28:00. > :28:03.Absolutely, but that decision has been taken by the previous
:28:04. > :28:08.parliament. What we are talking about here is a specific proposal by
:28:09. > :28:13.the Conservatives, in their uncosted manifesto. Jo, at least you have got
:28:14. > :28:18.the document which you can go through which says where we would be
:28:19. > :28:21.raising revenue, where we would be taxing, where we would be getting
:28:22. > :28:27.the funding for our proposals. The Conservatives are getting away with
:28:28. > :28:30.producing a document that has, you know, 80 pledges, that doesn't give
:28:31. > :28:35.any indication whether funding is coming from. That's really
:28:36. > :28:38.important, that we hold the Tories to account on this. Finally, on
:28:39. > :28:44.immigration, you don't have any target at all for net migration - is
:28:45. > :28:50.that credible? I think it is, because what we have said is, under
:28:51. > :28:56.the Brexit negotiations, there are going to be controls on immigration,
:28:57. > :29:02.but we are going to have an immigration policy which serves our
:29:03. > :29:07.economy, because what we have to take into account is where there are
:29:08. > :29:11.still skill shortages in the NHS, in the care sector, in agriculture and
:29:12. > :29:14.tourism, and how we fill those gaps in a way which helps our economy.
:29:15. > :29:17.Andrew Gwynne, thank you. Let's take a look now
:29:18. > :29:28.at what else has been happening It has been a pact week of manifesto
:29:29. > :29:32.launches. As the parties - about from one event to the next, not
:29:33. > :29:36.everything always goes to plan. Yesterday we saw the Tory battle bus
:29:37. > :29:42.with a bit of engine trouble. Today we are hearing that the Ukip for bus
:29:43. > :29:45.seems to have had a run-in of its own. Meanwhile, the parties
:29:46. > :29:50.continued to cry out for your donations to help their cause.
:29:51. > :29:53.Luckily for them, there's always one or two generous people around who
:29:54. > :29:56.are willing to fork out. So, the Electoral Commission has now
:29:57. > :30:03.published the first set of figures to show us who is quids in. The
:30:04. > :30:07.Conservatives' coffers were boosted by more cash in the first week of
:30:08. > :30:12.the campaign than all the parties main rivals put together. They
:30:13. > :30:19.disclosed donations totalling ?4 million. Labour had ?2.8 million and
:30:20. > :30:23.the Lib Dems, ?180,000. But the biggest single donation to a party
:30:24. > :30:28.was from the Unite union, which gave ?2.3 million to Labour. Nicola
:30:29. > :30:35.Sturgeon told BBC Breakfast this morning there should be less focus
:30:36. > :30:39.on appearances. Women politicians, if they are always reduced to how
:30:40. > :30:42.they look and what they wear, then we are saying something that we
:30:43. > :30:47.shouldn't be saying about the status of women. And Ukip leader Paul
:30:48. > :30:51.Nuttall has postponed a visit to Clacton this afternoon. Apparently
:30:52. > :30:53.the parties battle bus has been damaged in an accident. We are told
:30:54. > :31:03.to visit may go ahead tomorrow. Spero thought for the rosette makers
:31:04. > :31:09.who have been making rosettes for the last 30 years. Cash spare a
:31:10. > :31:12.thought. Usually they have three months the ready, but now they are
:31:13. > :31:18.rushing to get them ready in three weeks. What noise does this farmyard
:31:19. > :31:27.animal make? When Boris Johnson visited a bakery near Bristol he was
:31:28. > :31:30.really milking it. So we've had the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem manifesto
:31:31. > :31:35.is and we are still waiting on the Ukip manifesto which is expected to
:31:36. > :31:39.come next week. It is expected to appeal to his core supporters such
:31:40. > :31:44.as a cut in foreign aid and that one in one out immigration policy.
:31:45. > :31:51.Looking ahead to the weekend, no letup yet. Theresa May and Jeremy
:31:52. > :31:55.Corbyn will be out campaigning. With Jeremy Corbyn still hoping to draw
:31:56. > :32:02.the crowds at his rallies. With all that, do you have campaign fatigue?
:32:03. > :32:11.We don't here. We have the stamina to go all the way. STUDIO: I will
:32:12. > :32:14.put that question to you in other -- another week's time.
:32:15. > :32:17.The swingometer has been a regular feature of election night coverage
:32:18. > :32:21.It was designed to explain the unfolding results in visual terms.
:32:22. > :32:24.What started off as a simple hand made prop has developed using
:32:25. > :32:35.Jenny Kumah's been looking at the evolution of the device.
:32:36. > :32:38.# It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing #.
:32:39. > :32:43.If it's election night, there's a swingometer.
:32:44. > :32:45.It first appeared on national TV in 1959, showing how movements
:32:46. > :32:50.of votes from one party to another translated into parliamentary seats.
:32:51. > :32:52.If the swing, for example, is one point consistently,
:32:53. > :32:56.and on the average to the Conservatives,
:32:57. > :32:59.they are not only in again, but they will have an increased
:33:00. > :33:06.What started off as a crude looking cardboard model has become more
:33:07. > :33:12.Nowadays it's all about virtual reality.
:33:13. > :33:15.For the 2015 general election the BBC transformed this room
:33:16. > :33:18.to show the Conservative path to power.
:33:19. > :33:23.Long gone are the days of just showing the shifts
:33:24. > :33:28.If we turn the swingometer to show the Conservative Lib Dems contest,
:33:29. > :33:35.that was a big part of the story in 2015.
:33:36. > :33:38.And with polls forecasting big gains for the Scottish National Party,
:33:39. > :33:40.the first SNP and Labour swingometer featured.
:33:41. > :33:42.So how did the concept of swing first come about?
:33:43. > :33:45.And just how useful is all this data?
:33:46. > :33:47.Well, it can all be traced back to this man.
:33:48. > :33:55.As a student here in Oxford he was playing around
:33:56. > :33:58.with the results of the 1945 election and he decided to record
:33:59. > :34:05.I'd been desperately keen on cricket statistics and in the war
:34:06. > :34:07.they stopped first-class cricket and I switched to
:34:08. > :34:13.In my spare time I played around with past election results.
:34:14. > :34:16.His theory led to the creation of the swingometer and decades
:34:17. > :34:22.Is that what's called being a syphologist?
:34:23. > :34:33.It's a somewhat indiscreet word that was coined by my mentor
:34:34. > :34:38.When ten seats were in, you could predict the final
:34:39. > :34:41.outcome on the assumption of reasonable regularity.
:34:42. > :34:45.They wouldn't all have had the same swing, but the average in those
:34:46. > :34:47.first seats came very near to the average swing
:34:48. > :34:52.Nobody had ever done that before, analysed elections
:34:53. > :34:57.And once you could look at the results in terms of percentages,
:34:58. > :35:01.He was there at the beginning and astonishingly he is still alive,
:35:02. > :35:03.still analysing elections, and only this week
:35:04. > :35:11.But one of the key challenges for the 2017 swingometers could be
:35:12. > :35:18.If you look at the polls at this election they suggest the Ukip vote
:35:19. > :35:24.We don't know that's going to happen, but if it does,
:35:25. > :35:26.and a lot of those voters switch to the Conservatives then
:35:27. > :35:29.the Conservative vote share will go up but that doesn't necessarily mean
:35:30. > :35:34.On the swingometer that will show up as a swing between Labour
:35:35. > :35:37.and the Conservatives, but that won't be telling
:35:38. > :35:43.you the story of what is happening at the election.
:35:44. > :35:46.As smaller parties have played a bigger role
:35:47. > :35:54.in the election result, more swingometers have featured
:35:55. > :35:58.and in 2017 there will be a total of five with the first ever showing
:35:59. > :35:59.the contest between the Conservatives and
:36:00. > :36:09.We've been joined in the studio by veteran political
:36:10. > :36:11.journalist Michael Crick, who you saw in Jenny's film there.
:36:12. > :36:23.I understand you are writing a book on the great man himself. What
:36:24. > :36:30.effect did he have on the way we cover elections? He has created his
:36:31. > :36:35.own science, really, from that thing he described in 1945, where he took
:36:36. > :36:39.The Times guide and he saw what it had was raw figures, and he turned
:36:40. > :36:45.them into percentages and he spotted the trends and that led to the
:36:46. > :36:49.concept of swing, the swingometer. This whole new area of sociology,
:36:50. > :36:58.really, and statistics, and the reason it is called syphology, it
:36:59. > :37:00.was a high table joke in Oxford, one of his colleagues wanted to
:37:01. > :37:12.call it election ology, and he said that was a good course title, and
:37:13. > :37:18.then one of his colleagues said, why don't we call it syphology. Equally
:37:19. > :37:24.important, David Butler was the election night pundit for the BBC
:37:25. > :37:29.from 1950, the first results programme, until 1979, he was the
:37:30. > :37:34.John Curtis of his day. He campaigned in the 50s to help the
:37:35. > :37:37.broadcasters because in the 1950s broadcasters were not allowed to
:37:38. > :37:42.cover election campaigns. It was a self-denying ordinance because there
:37:43. > :37:49.were fears that broadcasters would be bias and there were -- that was
:37:50. > :37:57.something which affected the BBC until 1955. David Butler said this
:37:58. > :38:01.was ridiculous. His second cousin Rab Butler was there, and they
:38:02. > :38:04.agreed it was ridiculous, and they relaxed the rules and three weeks
:38:05. > :38:09.later they had been Rochdale by-election, the first covered on
:38:10. > :38:15.television, and the 1959 campaign was covered properly by
:38:16. > :38:20.broadcasters. We have a lot to thank him for. What about the swingometers
:38:21. > :38:27.themselves? They have become more sophisticated. David Button is very
:38:28. > :38:32.modest about this, he said he didn't invent the swingometer, but yes, he
:38:33. > :38:37.did -- David Butler. He actually did the drawings which suggested the
:38:38. > :38:42.swingometer. He was not allowed to operate it at first. They made a
:38:43. > :38:48.little model on the desk in the mid-50s, and it was run from BBC
:38:49. > :38:54.Bristol, they experimented. Piloted in the regions? Yes, and then it
:38:55. > :39:03.became big in 1959. David certainly invented it. In 2010 and 2015, we
:39:04. > :39:06.have seen interest in a wide range of parties. We had a coalition
:39:07. > :39:10.government and there were expectations that could be repeated
:39:11. > :39:16.in 2015. In this election we are going back to more focus on the two
:39:17. > :39:22.main parties again? Because the Lib Dems and Ukip are not doing as well
:39:23. > :39:27.as they would hope. In the 1950s it was Labour versus the Conservatives,
:39:28. > :39:31.and there was really nobody else. Increasingly it has got more and
:39:32. > :39:36.more complex, and a third of the population don't vote for either of
:39:37. > :39:43.them. We are returning to the 2-party system. It makes the idea of
:39:44. > :39:48.a swing a bit more pertinent. Traditional conservative Labour
:39:49. > :39:55.swing as opposed to swings between them and everybody else. We have
:39:56. > :39:58.given parties against each other, rather than just the Conservatives
:39:59. > :40:05.and Labour, so does that make it more interesting? Well, we are only
:40:06. > :40:09.in the middle of a snapshot right now and we don't know which way it
:40:10. > :40:13.is going to go in terms of whether the Labour Party is either going to
:40:14. > :40:18.survive in the next 10-15 years, if it goes really badly. We could see
:40:19. > :40:24.any party. I would not want to say we're returning to the days of
:40:25. > :40:29.2-party swing. At least not to the days of it being the Conservatives
:40:30. > :40:34.and Labour. You are not suffering from election fatigue, but are
:40:35. > :40:40.people getting tired of elections, even with great swingometers? No,
:40:41. > :40:45.and I think the question of swings and the swingometer is as pertinent
:40:46. > :40:51.in this election as any as I have covered. You look at the changing
:40:52. > :40:55.percentages between the different parties. Especially Labour and the
:40:56. > :40:59.Conservatives, and you try to map family seats will be won if there is
:41:00. > :41:07.a change of a certain amount -- how many seats. This could turn into a
:41:08. > :41:11.general election result of 24 seats, and if you look at the polls and put
:41:12. > :41:14.that on to the general election, you have a result of a 60 seat majority
:41:15. > :41:18.that the Conservatives, but we think there could be more. There is the
:41:19. > :41:24.additional factor, it looks as if there are big regional differences.
:41:25. > :41:27.In the north of England, there are bigger swings which could deliver
:41:28. > :41:33.the Conservatives an even bigger overall majority. But it is
:41:34. > :41:36.difficult to predict, as we discovered in 2015 when the polls
:41:37. > :41:40.had not predicted a small Conservative majority. When it came
:41:41. > :41:43.to predicting swings, people were working a lot on the basis of their
:41:44. > :41:48.being a coalition government and they got it wrong. There is a sense
:41:49. > :41:55.that there isn't fatigue, almost the opposite. The publication of the
:41:56. > :42:01.manifestos which is so different... That is sparking interest? And
:42:02. > :42:04.fighting amongst people I meeting, there are real arguments and debates
:42:05. > :42:11.because there is such a difference in the manifestos -- and fighting
:42:12. > :42:16.amongst -- I'm finding amongst. Jeremy Corbyn is not just a nice
:42:17. > :42:20.guy, he has this manifesto. That is a kind of leadership. People are
:42:21. > :42:26.getting a bit worried about that and the whole interest in the
:42:27. > :42:31.Progressive Alliance, stop the Tories, there is interest in the
:42:32. > :42:37.Green Party full stop it has not been taken on by the Liberal
:42:38. > :42:41.Democrats and the Labour Party. No, but this is a slight problem for the
:42:42. > :42:44.swingometer, which is a bit one-dimensional. It was always
:42:45. > :42:50.comparing the two, but you need more of a roundabout. There is a
:42:51. > :42:56.difference between the swingometer and the concept of swing. People
:42:57. > :43:00.have devised swingometers which involve other parties, but the
:43:01. > :43:05.concept of swing will still be useful. What is fascinating, we live
:43:06. > :43:10.in a world which is increasingly uniform, but swing has become less
:43:11. > :43:13.uniform. It was much more uniform in the 1950s and one of the beauties of
:43:14. > :43:18.modern elections, different areas of the country become, they are
:43:19. > :43:21.becoming more diverse, compared with what they were in the early days of
:43:22. > :43:30.David Butler's swing and swingometer. Michael, thanks for
:43:31. > :43:32.joining us. That is what makes it unpredictable, amongst people under
:43:33. > :43:38.40 there is a swing towards Jeremy Corbyn and there is a uncertainty
:43:39. > :43:39.about registration. There has certainly been published at about
:43:40. > :43:44.that. Thanks for coming in, Michael. Now, immigration remains
:43:45. > :43:46.the ultimate political hot topic, and the Conservatives are hoping
:43:47. > :43:48.to capitalise on it. They've revived the pledge
:43:49. > :43:50.they made before the last two general elections -
:43:51. > :43:52.reduce immigration down I'm so sorry, is it not a policy
:43:53. > :44:04.to get immigration down? And we've had it in
:44:05. > :44:06.previous manifestos... What's the difference
:44:07. > :44:09.between an ambition and a policy? You've had it in previous manifestos
:44:10. > :44:12.and palpably not delivered it. I assume by repeating it, there
:44:13. > :44:17.was some meaning to it this time? Well, it's our aim to continue
:44:18. > :44:20.to bear down on immigration. And of course for the first time
:44:21. > :44:23.this is going to become easier There will be no further entitlement
:44:24. > :44:27.to freedom of movement. Anyone in Bulgaria or Lithuania can
:44:28. > :44:33.up sticks and come here... We've been joined by Gurnek Bains,
:44:34. > :44:37.the chief executive of a new think-tank,
:44:38. > :44:39.Global Future, which is arguing for a net immigration target
:44:40. > :44:42.of at least 200,000. And Ukip's immigration spokesman,
:44:43. > :44:56.John Bickley, joins us You say that the Conservative
:44:57. > :45:00.Party's pledge to cut net migration to the tens of thousands is
:45:01. > :45:08.impossible to fulfil without devastating economic consequences,
:45:09. > :45:11.how so? I think there is a responsibility on governments when
:45:12. > :45:14.they make a pledge like that to say how it will be met and what the
:45:15. > :45:21.consequences will be. To put it in perspective, net migration is now
:45:22. > :45:25.273. Tens of thousands target has been around for seven years. It has
:45:26. > :45:30.been 20 years since we've been anywhere close to achieving the
:45:31. > :45:35.100,000 target. Our view is that we cannot move towards that target
:45:36. > :45:40.without serious economic consequences and social consequences
:45:41. > :45:45.for the country. John Bickley, what do you say to that? I think the Tory
:45:46. > :45:49.party are taking the British voters for falls, as has just been said. In
:45:50. > :45:52.fact, two prime ministers have been telling us for several years that
:45:53. > :46:00.they want to reduce it to the tens of thousands. But you want to take
:46:01. > :46:03.it even lower, dull I'm afraid if I could just finished, I looked at the
:46:04. > :46:06.Tory manifesto yesterday and first of all, I could not find anything on
:46:07. > :46:11.immigration. It is tucked away in the back of the manifesto, it does
:46:12. > :46:15.not have its own chapter heading. I eventually found it, three
:46:16. > :46:19.paragraphs. There is a reference to tens of thousands, and some waffle
:46:20. > :46:22.about some point in the future. This is just not acceptable for a
:46:23. > :46:26.government which will get re-elected on the 8th of June, to mislead the
:46:27. > :46:30.British people. Well, let's have a look at your policy. Paul Nuttall
:46:31. > :46:36.said yesterday that there would be a one in, one out system for
:46:37. > :46:40.immigration. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that it
:46:41. > :46:45.would cost ?16 billion by 2020 - is that a price worth paying? I don't
:46:46. > :46:53.believe that at all. Let's go back to 1973, when we voted to stay in
:46:54. > :47:00.the European Union, then the ECA. For the next 22 years, up until when
:47:01. > :47:03.Labour came to power, there was balanced immigration, and during
:47:04. > :47:07.that time, the British economy became one of the most successful
:47:08. > :47:10.economies in the world. The Tories handed over a booming economy to the
:47:11. > :47:14.Labour government, they may even have handed over a surplus. We had
:47:15. > :47:20.balanced immigration for 22 years. Let's put that to Gurnek Bains, so
:47:21. > :47:23.come it is possible to achieve balanced immigration and not harm
:47:24. > :47:31.the economy? That is a historical view. Because actually, there are a
:47:32. > :47:36.whole set of trends in our report. The UK has a massively ageing
:47:37. > :47:41.population. In those years, we were not at full employment, and we are.
:47:42. > :47:45.When we hit full employment, in 2003, immigration was near 200,000.
:47:46. > :47:51.We also have a productivity crisis in this country. If you put all that
:47:52. > :47:55.together, you need net migration, we believe, in the region of 200,000,
:47:56. > :48:00.looking forward. Looking backwards, I can see why people have pulled
:48:01. > :48:03.this thing around, but actually, looking at the way the structure of
:48:04. > :48:10.British society is going, to give you one example, Japan, which is a
:48:11. > :48:14.society in full employment, ageing population, as net migration below
:48:15. > :48:20.100,000, has stagnated economically. Gets put that to John Bickley, how
:48:21. > :48:24.would our public services be run if there was an immediate, significant
:48:25. > :48:31.drop in net migration? You have spoken about a five-year period? We
:48:32. > :48:34.have spoken about an average over five years, and that would not be
:48:35. > :48:38.happening for at least two years, before we leave the EU. Your guest
:48:39. > :48:41.touched on something which I think is the elephant in the room. Our
:48:42. > :48:47.productivity in this country is appalling. Out of the G7, we are
:48:48. > :48:52.sixth, we are 35% behind America and Germany. And what do you think would
:48:53. > :48:56.improve it? That is a debate in itself. You said it is terrible, but
:48:57. > :49:00.what is your proposal? Just to assume that letting in hundreds of
:49:01. > :49:03.thousands more people willy-nilly is going to solve our productivity
:49:04. > :49:08.problem is not the answer to the question. What is? Well, we have to
:49:09. > :49:12.improve the education that our kids are getting, we need to improve
:49:13. > :49:17.training... And how long would that take, do you think? Of course it
:49:18. > :49:21.would take time, which is why over a period of years, we are not looking
:49:22. > :49:25.at a cliff edge with regard to immigration. We are talking two
:49:26. > :49:29.years before we leave the EU and then five years to get this under
:49:30. > :49:34.control. You have spoken about this before, who would sit on your
:49:35. > :49:39.migration control commission? People such as the CBI, the TUC, chambers
:49:40. > :49:43.of commerce, representatives from Ireland, Scotland, Wales and
:49:44. > :49:46.England. The CBI are very unhappy about any changes to bring down
:49:47. > :49:51.migration dramatically, because of the effect they say it would have on
:49:52. > :49:54.business. So if they, like the OBR, include that net migration should be
:49:55. > :50:00.200,000 a year, would you be prepared to go with that? Well, we
:50:01. > :50:02.would set up the migration control commission with a specific target
:50:03. > :50:08.EDDIE JORDAN: Be charged with meeting that target. The CBI, I'm
:50:09. > :50:10.afraid, supports the big corporate scum are the big multinationals who
:50:11. > :50:15.benefit from cheap Labour but do not pay corporation tax or their fair
:50:16. > :50:19.share. Rather than just having the benefits of cheap Labour, for which
:50:20. > :50:25.the taxpayer has to pick up the bill for the public services to service
:50:26. > :50:28.that cheap Labour, we need to have a look at the CBI's claims and
:50:29. > :50:32.actually start investing in technology. One thing stated in the
:50:33. > :50:36.Conservative manifesto is that too much immigration makes it difficult
:50:37. > :50:40.to build a cohesive society. Getting away from the figures, what do you
:50:41. > :50:43.say to people who feel their communities have been changed beyond
:50:44. > :50:48.recognition by immigration and want it reduced? Look, there has been a
:50:49. > :50:54.high level of net migration, for a variety of reasons, some of which
:50:55. > :50:58.are abating. We get that. At post-Brexit, I think as we have the
:50:59. > :51:02.right to control our borders, I think we need a rational, open
:51:03. > :51:08.debate about the levels of migration. But you don't want them
:51:09. > :51:12.to come down? I think there may be some natural decline, but we need an
:51:13. > :51:17.open conversation about what is the level of migration. In terms of
:51:18. > :51:20.social cohesion, the thing that drives, and will hit social cohesion
:51:21. > :51:28.most, is economic stagnation. And the social impact of a loss of
:51:29. > :51:32.migration is that people will see local construction firms in their
:51:33. > :51:35.areas fail, they might not be able to get carers for their parents,
:51:36. > :51:39.they will go to the NHS, who will not have the staff, they will see
:51:40. > :51:44.their high street, restaurants, hotels, suffering and potentially
:51:45. > :51:49.going bust. And the productivity miracle, Japan was supposed to have
:51:50. > :51:53.that, it has the lowest level of productivity... Why can't we train
:51:54. > :51:57.more people here to do those jobs? We are on full employment, you can't
:51:58. > :51:59.mushroom workers out of nowhere. Both of you, sorry, we have run out
:52:00. > :52:03.of time. As well as the magnificent seven
:52:04. > :52:05.of big-name political parties, there are also a whole range
:52:06. > :52:07.of smaller parties trying to rustle up some votes
:52:08. > :52:10.in the general election - today, we'll be hearing from a party
:52:11. > :52:12.looking to push back in 2008 and believes that the state
:52:13. > :52:18.should be as small as possible. for government is national defence
:52:19. > :52:22.and maintaining the rule of law. The party wants to see MPs replaced
:52:23. > :52:24.with Swiss-style direct They say the welfare
:52:25. > :52:30.state is unsustainable, and is essentially just borrowing
:52:31. > :52:33.money from unborn generations. committed to abolishing
:52:34. > :52:43.a range of taxes, including income, inheritance
:52:44. > :52:46.and capital gains taxes. In principle, they believe
:52:47. > :52:52.in the free movement of peoples, provided migrants receive
:52:53. > :52:54.no state support. We've been joined in the studio
:52:55. > :53:04.by the party's deputy Welcome to The Daily Politics. You
:53:05. > :53:09.say you believe in a small state and abolishing most taxes, but you
:53:10. > :53:11.propose attacks to pay off the national debt, so are you just
:53:12. > :53:15.replacing one set of taxes with one very large one? It is a really good
:53:16. > :53:20.point. It is something that was wrestled with. One of the key
:53:21. > :53:24.principles we have is that not only do we have freedom but we also have
:53:25. > :53:28.to take responsibility. I think it is an important question. We have a
:53:29. > :53:32.generation that has been clamouring for greater and greater public
:53:33. > :53:37.services, but in a way, has also been demanding that somebody else
:53:38. > :53:43.pay for those services. As a result, we have a large national debt in the
:53:44. > :53:47.region of ?1.5 trillion. The question is, how do we as a
:53:48. > :53:52.generation take responsibility for that? So you just think one big tax,
:53:53. > :53:58.I do not see the difference? , that might be an option for us. The
:53:59. > :54:01.difficulty is, how do we pay off this debt, do we pay it off now or
:54:02. > :54:08.do we leave it to our children? Let's have a look, you're suggesting
:54:09. > :54:12.a 10% corporation tax, considerably lower than it is at the moment.
:54:13. > :54:18.Howard that help pay off the deficit and the debt? It is a good question.
:54:19. > :54:23.It boils down to a simple ethical principle. The ethical principle is
:54:24. > :54:28.that each individual works hard and earns money. We all have a right to
:54:29. > :54:33.own our life and do what we want with our time, provided we cause no
:54:34. > :54:39.harm to other people. From that ethical principle, we always argue
:54:40. > :54:42.that we should reduce the level of taxation as much as is possible. But
:54:43. > :54:51.paying off the debt at the same time. Is it really credible, your
:54:52. > :54:54.modern? We believe that each individual has to take some
:54:55. > :54:58.responsibility for themselves. At the end of the day, there is an
:54:59. > :55:03.element of choice, whether each individual works or not. Do we as a
:55:04. > :55:10.generation take responsibility for the deficit and pay it off as
:55:11. > :55:12.quickly as we can all...? This is an interesting question, the
:55:13. > :55:17.Conservatives in their manifesto have said they will eliminate the
:55:18. > :55:24.deficit, they originally said by 2015, now it is 2025 - does Will
:55:25. > :55:29.Taylor have a point but are we there is an interesting overlap between
:55:30. > :55:32.the Libertarian Party and bits of the Conservative Party. There are
:55:33. > :55:38.people who want to minimise things as much as possible, in the same
:55:39. > :55:45.way. But what is interesting is that Theresa May, yesterday, set her
:55:46. > :55:49.stance against the Libertarian Party's philosophy and that wing of
:55:50. > :55:54.her own party, by saying, nobody is in a vacuum, everybody owes whatever
:55:55. > :55:58.success they have to the society that they come from. We have debts
:55:59. > :56:03.and obligations to the community and the state and the society which
:56:04. > :56:08.helps us come successful individuals, we have to pay for
:56:09. > :56:11.those obligations and debts. So, Theresa May yesterday explicitly
:56:12. > :56:18.rejected any kind of libertarian philosophy in the way that she wants
:56:19. > :56:20.to run the Conservative Party. It is interesting whether or not that
:56:21. > :56:25.might push some people out of the Conservative Party. If they are
:56:26. > :56:29.upset about it, those people, they're keeping quiet at the moment.
:56:30. > :56:36.You oppose the idea of a welfare state - why? Again, if boils down to
:56:37. > :56:40.the principle, that we work hard, we are our own money, and therefore we
:56:41. > :56:45.believe we should have more freedom and choice in how that money is
:56:46. > :56:49.spent. What about health care and schools, if you went private? Are
:56:50. > :56:57.not suggesting private schooling. What about inequality, it is a
:56:58. > :57:00.matter of wealth, including private wealth and corporate wealth, don't
:57:01. > :57:05.you need the state to provide some kind of challenge to sources of
:57:06. > :57:11.power which are to do with wealth? I agree that there are lots of
:57:12. > :57:14.problems in society. The Libertarian Party, like all parties, wants to
:57:15. > :57:19.solve those problems, we are effectively on the same side. What
:57:20. > :57:22.we argue about is how. We ask a simple question - is it possible to
:57:23. > :57:27.solve those problems by giving people more freedom and more choice?
:57:28. > :57:30.Now, sometimes, it isn't. In that case there may be a role for
:57:31. > :57:36.government. But if it is possible, is it not right to at least try?
:57:37. > :57:37.Will Taylor, on that question being posed, we will let you go, thank
:57:38. > :57:41.you. At the end of a campaign week
:57:42. > :57:44.which saw manifesto launches from most of the main parties,
:57:45. > :57:47.we thought it would be a good moment to see how the bookies are viewing
:57:48. > :57:49.the upcoming election. Katie Baylis from Betfair joins us
:57:50. > :57:56.live outside Parliament. Take us through the odds. It is
:57:57. > :58:04.really interesting, and as you would expect, on our two main markets for
:58:05. > :58:11.the 8th of June to overall majority, the Tories, massive odds-on
:58:12. > :58:25.favourites. A Labour overall majority, that would be a huge
:58:26. > :58:29.upset, but is currently at 54-1. Interestingly, though, in the last
:58:30. > :58:35.24 hours, since the release of the Tory manifesto, the Labour odds have
:58:36. > :58:41.shortened. So perhaps a little bit of backing for Labour off the back
:58:42. > :58:46.of that. Thank you very much for that, Katie Baylis.
:58:47. > :58:49.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:50. > :58:51.The question was, how has Donald Trump described
:58:52. > :58:53.the investigation into alleged collusion between his presidential
:58:54. > :59:01.So, Sam and Hilary, what's the correct answer?
:59:02. > :59:11.B) unbelievable? No. A) a witch hunt. It was indeed!
:59:12. > :59:16.Thanks to Sam, Hilary and all my guests.
:59:17. > :59:18.Adam Fleming will be presenting another edition
:59:19. > :59:20.of his Election Broom Cupboard show on the BBC Politics Facebook
:59:21. > :59:25.Andrew will be on BBC One on Sunday at 11am, with The Sunday Politics.
:59:26. > :59:29.And I'll be here at noon on Monday, with more comprehensive coverage