19/05/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Labour go on the offensive, attacking the Conservatives'

manifesto plans as a "savage attack on vulnerable pensioners".

A day after Theresa May launched her manifesto

for Britain, Forward, Together, we'll assess

the Conservatives' plans for government.

What's the right level of immigration for Britain,

We'll hear from the boss of a new think tank which argues

for a net immigration target of at least 200,000.

And we'll profile the real star of the election

night results programme, the tried-and-tested

If the swing, for example, is one point consistently,

and on the average to the Conservatives,

they are not only in again, but they will have an increased

And with me for the whole of the programme today,

Sam Coates of the Times, and Hilary Wainwright,

founder and editor of the left-wing magazine Red Pepper.

Let's start with last night's election debate on ITV,

featuring five opposition leaders but not Theresa May

The Brexit negotiations between Brussels and London over

these next few months will lead to outcomes that none of us can

And that means at the end, you should have the final say.

There were no clarity as to what Leave actually meant.

Theresa May is not just pursuing Brexit.

She is pursuing a hard, extreme Brexit.

People voted to leave the European Union.

They didn't just vote to control our borders.

Are the people who work in our NHS the best in the world?

Is our NHS the best funded in the world?

Have I? I'm sorry about that.

There's no need to put up taxation to pay for this.

We can simply take it from the foreign aid budget.

Take it from the poorest people in the world.

Very briefly, Nicola Sturgeon and then Tim Farron.

Paul is talking about taking resources from some of the poorest

We contribute through foreign aid, not just to help the poorest

people in the world, which I think as it happens

is the right thing to do, but also to make this country safer.

Paul says that is where he wants to get the money.

The question he still hasn't answered, if he's going to stop EU

migration, where is he getting the staff for the

summer the highlights from last night. Who were the winners and

losers? Sam? -- some of the highlights. I did not watch the

entire thing, after a long day at Halifax, covering the Conservative

manifesto. What you had last night were politicians who most people in

the country cannot vote for, so it is hard to ascribe winners when

really Tim Farron is the only national politicians. Ukip bar only

standing in 400 or so seats cash are. The greens are standing in

around 500. It is a cure is, says Jim. Nicola Sturgeon did well, she's

a good performer in the circumstances -- it was a key areas

conversation. Did you think that Theresa May and

Jeremy Corbyn made the right decision in not taking part? Theresa

May is determined to not be accountable, to not be questioned,

and when she was questioned on the streets it was a very awkward

exchange. The fact that she would not be debated, even David Cameron

was willing to be debated and joined in a debate with all of them. Jeremy

Corbyn had to expose that fact. Ed Miliband did take part last time?

Because David Cameron did. It was a proper debate about who was going to

be in government, but now with Theresa May disappearing, it is not

a debate. I missed Jeremy Corbyn's argument, because there was one

woman who was talking about making ends meet and no one mentioned the

importance of unions and workers being organised to get decent wages.

But I understand why he didn't do it. Do you think they made the right

tackle ageing? -- the right cancellation? It was hard to get

them to turn up in that kind of format, but you do want the people

who are potentially the next Prime Minister to appear before the public

in an election campaign, and that is right and fair, so, come on guys,

get it together, we want to see you together. Natalie also made an

appearance, whoever she is! The question for today is,

how has Donald Trump described the investigation into alleged

collusion between his presidential At the end of the show Sam

and Hilary will give So, 24 hours on from the publication

of the Conservative manifesto, and our back-room team here have

been busy reading all 84 pages So what are the big changes

Theresa May is proposing compared The manifesto moves the target

for balancing the budget to 2025, back from the current aim

of "as early as possible The current "tax triple lock",

which pledges no increases in income tax, national insurance

or VAT, will be ditched As for 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%, the manifesto lays out that it

will become a "Double Lock" in 2020, tracking either inflation

or average earnings. The Winter Fuel Allowance

for pensioners, the annual one-off payment of between ?100-300

per person, would Under a Conservative government

those needing social care in old age will be now able to retain ?100,000

in assets before paying for care, up from the previous floor of ?23,250,

although the value of their property The manifesto also pledges a minimum

?8 billion real terms increase in the budget for NHS

England by 2022. Free school lunches for infants

in England would be replaced by free breakfasts for all

primary school children. There is a guarantee that no school

will have its budget cut under the new national

funding formula. And the ban on setting

up new grammar schools The second part of

the Leveson Inquiry, which would investigate the culture,

pratices and ethics of the press, would be scrapped in the event

of a Conservative victory. And, the yet-to-be-activated

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2014,

which would force newspapers to pay their opponent's legal costs

linked to libel and privacy actions, And finally the Fixed

Terms Parliament Act, which introduced fixed-terms

elections to the UK parliament, will also be repealed

under a Tory government. We asked the Conservative Party

for a minister but none Instead we are joined

by Rupert Harrison, George Osborne's former Chief of Staff who now works

at the investment management Why were there no costings in this

manifesto? That is a good question. When you are the party in

government, you have huge dominance on economic competence. You don't

need costings, they figure they can get away with it, everyone assumes

they are in power and it will dealt with in the budget. You can ask them

questions but I suppose they can get away with it. Doesn't it show a

level of arrogance to the voting public? When you have repeatedly

criticised Labour for not having detailed costings, which they have

now provided, that you can get away with no tax and spending plans in

detail? That is a little unfair. The central characteristic of the

manifesto, it was quite brave, an impressive attempt to do something

difficult things. The Labour Party is doing a classic attack on winter

fuel payments and social care reforms, but these are quite brave

and difficult things to put in the manifesto. They could have gone for

vote maximisation strategy to win at all costs. The opposing Eichmann,

they could have been more radical? -- the opposing argument. Just focus

on the figures. If you are producing a manifesto that doesn't add up or

we can't tell if it does, people will ask questions about your

competence? You earn competence in government by demonstrating what you

do and the fact the deficit is down... But not eliminated as George

Osborne said. They have brought themselves more wriggle room on the

fiscal side by pushing out the deadline for getting back to a

surplus which can absorb any issues that they have around costings. I

don't think this will be the major weakness of this manifesto. They can

weather any attacks. Let's have a look at the tax and spending

implications. The triple tax lock was brought in and David Cameron and

the George Osborne has been abandoned -- under. So we will

expect tax rises? This is a brave and right decision. It was a gimmick

when they used it, David Cameron? I wouldn't use that word, but it was a

bad policy born of a tight election. Having a new Prime Minister and a

large lead in the polls means you can get rid of some barnacles and I

think the tax lock was a barnacle, like the winter chill payment, which

was -- winter fuel payment, which was something David Cameron felt he

should promise on. It reduces flexibility for the dead thing we

should expect large tax rises. -- I don't think. It is more around, you

saw the way they got tripped up on the national insurance rise. I don't

think they are planning some huge tax rise. The Institute for Fiscal

Studies said the Conservatives will have to ?40 billion, so we can

expect tax rises? That can be achieved by the spending plans which

are already in place and hopefully if the economy continues growing,

there is natural economic growth. I don't think there's a Big Apple to

be filled, I don't think that the reason. -- I don't think there's a

big gap. Talking about social care, as one of the brave proposals, in

your words, does it go far enough? There are two different issues in

social care and I don't think it deals with one of them but it deals

with the other. It doesn't deal with the idea of insurance. Generally we

are able to insure against catastrophes, the NHS against

illnesses, we can insure against our house burning down, for example, but

we can't insure against needing care in old age. The options are private

insurance, and that is what we reforms were about, that capping

that, and... The last manifesto said that was going to be lamented. That

was untested and that was always a bit of a gamble -- said that was

going to be implemented. Both of these are very difficult for

different reasons and they have chosen not to really go for either.

They have gone for a progressive reform of the way that the means

test works and that is going to release a fair amount of resources

to social care which is the other big issue. A large number of people

are going to have their care costs go up. More people are going to pay,

that is why it is brave. It is very clear that that is the system.

?100,000, that is not as I as it was under David Cameron, which was

?118,000? -- not as high. I think that is quite clever, it says you

are not going to have to go down to your last pennies. It has created a

new regional postcode lottery. Areas with low house prices, people get

state support very quickly, because when the assets fall below ?100,000,

but in London and the south-east, most homeowners will not get a penny

towards their care. Those homeowners have benefited hugely from the

increase in house prices, you could say. This is something which has

been needed to be done, and people have been nervous about it but now

we have a window with a popular Prime Minister and they are now

using this for something. Is it a brave thing? At least Theresa May

has dipped her toe in the water on social care and she has gone for a

model, even if you don't like it. How will this be received? This

manifesto is a very rational manifesto, it is a manifesto to be

implemented after an election but not ideal during the election

campaign because somethings have the potential to be quite unpopular. I'm

struck this morning that this complicated social care proposal is

already being talked about at the school gate. They are calling this

the dementia tax. Exactly, and the prospect of people paying much more

is a concept that voters can quickly understand and that could be fairly

traumatic for the Conservative Party if that causes a big reaction.

It must mean that Theresa May feels very confident, to put such a risky

proposal like this to voters, it is a gamble? I think the whole

manifesto shows an incredible hubris overconfidence. The language,

referring to manifesto commitments as barnacles. A manifesto is meant

to be a way in which people can be caught to account, prime ministers

and governments. So they need to be specific. And this isn't. It was

like an elegant, not that elegant, fluent, political try from a

postgraduate student. There was no actual specifics, sides this one on

social care. On social capital I think the key thing is addressing

the question of actual care, what has happened to local authorities,

old people's homes, the cuts to local authorities meaning that those

homes are actually really poor quality, workers are not being

valued, skilled, trained, so actually, there is no adequate care.

And that needs to be addressed to go and is it not masking the fact that

there have been swingeing cuts to local authorities, and therefore now

the onus will be on people who have valuable assets? I don't think it

makes sense to critique the manifesto for posing political

risks, and also being vague. I think it has big, controversial things in

it. Also, when thinking about how the public will respond, yes, there

will probably be a political cost, and in that sense it reminds me a

little bit of 2010 and the Conservative manifesto then, about

raising the state pension age and things, I think it probably did cost

us votes, but it was worth it for the authority it gave us to then go

on and do different things. But it has got to work, though, hasn't it?

But I think also, you get rewarded for honesty. People will say, here's

a politician who is not playing games, she is telling us some

difficult truths. The voters... But she is also potentially asking a lot

more people to pay a lot more for their care? But as you say, they see

the need. Well, do they? If you look at the means testing of the winter

fuel allowance, how much will that raise but with a number I have seen

is 1.7 billion, I don't know. It depends on the level. But again, it

is an irony, in a way. It is an extremely progressive way to raise

money for something which is badly needed. I don't think it is

progressive, because the point about the original idea was universal

provision. And that enabled people to... There's very vivid figures on

the numbers of people who just do not claim because of means testing,

and that is what Beveridge was trying to... The point is, it is

taking money from better off people to find something which helps

everyone. But that is done through the tax system. I am not rich, but

my winter fuel allowance and my pension is all part of my tax and I

get taxed on it so it goes back into the system. So actually, it is

sneaky to say, we're going to be brave and cut the winter fuel

allowance. Firstly, a lot of older people do not claim it. And more

people will end up not claiming it, though. Anybody wealthy is taxed on

it anyway, so it goes back into the system. So actually, it is not

really a practical measure. Better off people, otherwise known as

Conservative voters, I have got Tory MPs and saying, we have got a social

care problem potentially, we are using free school meals for infants,

how does this manifesto help, rather than hurt? We have got another three

weeks of this, it is not terribly useful.

Labour have been on the attack this morning, at a press conference

in central london the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell,

branded the Conservative manifesto's proposals for pensioners

Let me just mention the issue with regard to older people.

Yesterday, the Conservative Party abandoned older people.

The tearing-up of the triple lock, the attack on the winter fuel

allowance, and yes, the plans on care costs

I just want to mention the issue around the winter fuel allowance.

I'm one of those people who campaigned against fuel poverty

for a number of years and welcomed the introduction of

And we've been joined by Labour's election campaign

Welcome back to The Daily Politics. Listening to Rupert Harrison, this

is a progressive measure in terms of social care and means testing, and

something which should be applauded? I am proud of the record that the

Labour government had in lifting 900,000 elderly people out of

poverty. That is a record to be proud of, and in part we did that

through measures like the winter fuel allowance. I think it is a

retrograde step. As we have already heard, the progressive way of

dealing with the winter fuel allowance is to make sure that those

wealthy pensioners have it clawed back through the taxation system.

But why is it not progressive to make those who are better off pay a

bit more or get a bit less from the state? Let's look at the winter fuel

allowance first of all - why should richer pensioners get it? Well, we

want to make sure that everybody who qualifies for the winter fuel

allowance gets it. The problem with means testing, as we've heard is

that there are a sizeable number of people who do not apply for

means-tested things. For example, like the pension credits, there are

about a third of pensioners who are eligible for pension credit who... I

take that point, we have said that. But as a principle, do you agree

that it is a progressive way to look at this particular aspect? What is

progressive is making sure that all pensioners at the winter fuel

allowance and clawing back the additional money from the richest

pensioners to the taxation system. Because actually, what is being

talked about here are around 10 million pensioners, potentially

losing their winter fuel allowance, part of the 12 million pensioners

that get it. That's not progressive, that is an attack on pensioners.

Let's have a look at the pensions triple lock, because now the

Conservative manifesto is saying it will be a triple look until 2020,

followed by a double lock. Why did you not do something similar, why

are you gold-plating it, when young people are struggling to go to

college, or even to get on the housing ladder? I'm sure you know,

it is not either or. We want to make sure that young people are looked

after and that's why we are committed to building homes and...

Why are you gold-plating a guarantee for better of pensioners, the triple

lock? Because the pensioners today have made this country what it is

and I think we should owe them a guarantee that whatever is the

highest, prices, wages or 2.5%, they are guaranteed that in their

pension. I understand the policy, what I'm saying is, why do you

believe that it is the right thing to do, to continue the pensions

triple lock, when in fact the double lock would serve pretty well as

well? In fact, the double lock would have resulted in the same cohort of

pensioners receiving ?330 less. So, of course, for those pensioners, the

pensions triple lock has actually served them well in the past. We

want to give them the confidence that in the future, they will have

the same guarantees. What about the care proposals, are they not

progressive? Well, we support a cap on social care provision Google at

what level? We have said that we will have a cross-party review in

the next Parliament. We have, we had to do my proposal. Social care, as

you have said yourselves, is already cut to the bone so why can't you

give me a cap level? Well, that has to be discussed. What we are talking

about is ?8 billion extra into adult social care, ?1 billion immediately

in the first year, not least to help raise the wages of those people who

are working in pretty shocking conditions on 15 minute, zero-hours

contracts. What about a proposal which puts more of the burden on

people with broad shoulders, people with ?100,000 or less in assets will

get the same? Because we think a cap is a fairer way of doing it. This is

an attack on elderly people. Not the poorest, who you claim to help? We

do not support the Conservatives' proposals, let me make that clear.

We will discuss an appropriate cap level in the next Parliament. What

do you think about this more Universalist approach by Labour,

compared to what the Tories would say is a more progressive look? I

think universalism is progressive. Beverage after all was not from

Labour, he was a rather patronising liberal! But he believed in that

universal provision, because you get the funds through a proper taxation

system which means taxing inheritance, taxing wealth, taxing

corporate games. These are to some extent assets, aren't they? Yes, but

it could have been done more systematically, without the means

test, that's the point. That is what is good about the Labour manifesto,

that there is a clear reversal of all these concessions to the

wealthy, people who have got unearned wealth. If you attack those

with a progressive tax system, which can then find a universal provision

and actual care... What about the fact, Andrew Gwynne is saying they

have still not decided on a cap level, is it still credible to be

talking about proposals and cross-party talks, wanting more

talks, about this issue? The problem with setting is a cap is that you

have got to work out where the money will come from. Labour are kicking

that down the road and it is interesting, what Labour have done

today. Actually, pretty much, Labour have landed on a weak spot for the

Conservatives, social care and winter fuel. They have hit them hard

this morning in a way which has actually impressed but a few Tories

that I have been speaking to. But on the possible, in order to make their

argument, Labour is this morning having to argue against means

testing. John McDonnell is having to say that I don't think means testing

for winter fuel allowance is a good idea. That opens up difficult

costumes for Labour, such as, why should John McDonnell get the winter

fuel allowance? That's because you asked him. That's because I asked

him at the press conference. There is another issue, though, on

universalism versus means testing - if you do believe in that, which is

perfectly credible, will he be restoring child benefit? Look, we

are where we are with that particular benefit. Either you

believe in the principle of universalism, all you don't?

Absolutely, but that decision has been taken by the previous

parliament. What we are talking about here is a specific proposal by

the Conservatives, in their uncosted manifesto. Jo, at least you have got

the document which you can go through which says where we would be

raising revenue, where we would be taxing, where we would be getting

the funding for our proposals. The Conservatives are getting away with

producing a document that has, you know, 80 pledges, that doesn't give

any indication whether funding is coming from. That's really

important, that we hold the Tories to account on this. Finally, on

immigration, you don't have any target at all for net migration - is

that credible? I think it is, because what we have said is, under

the Brexit negotiations, there are going to be controls on immigration,

but we are going to have an immigration policy which serves our

economy, because what we have to take into account is where there are

still skill shortages in the NHS, in the care sector, in agriculture and

tourism, and how we fill those gaps in a way which helps our economy.

Andrew Gwynne, thank you. Let's take a look now

at what else has been happening It has been a pact week of manifesto

launches. As the parties - about from one event to the next, not

everything always goes to plan. Yesterday we saw the Tory battle bus

with a bit of engine trouble. Today we are hearing that the Ukip for bus

seems to have had a run-in of its own. Meanwhile, the parties

continued to cry out for your donations to help their cause.

Luckily for them, there's always one or two generous people around who

are willing to fork out. So, the Electoral Commission has now

published the first set of figures to show us who is quids in. The

Conservatives' coffers were boosted by more cash in the first week of

the campaign than all the parties main rivals put together. They

disclosed donations totalling ?4 million. Labour had ?2.8 million and

the Lib Dems, ?180,000. But the biggest single donation to a party

was from the Unite union, which gave ?2.3 million to Labour. Nicola

Sturgeon told BBC Breakfast this morning there should be less focus

on appearances. Women politicians, if they are always reduced to how

they look and what they wear, then we are saying something that we

shouldn't be saying about the status of women. And Ukip leader Paul

Nuttall has postponed a visit to Clacton this afternoon. Apparently

the parties battle bus has been damaged in an accident. We are told

to visit may go ahead tomorrow. Spero thought for the rosette makers

who have been making rosettes for the last 30 years. Cash spare a

thought. Usually they have three months the ready, but now they are

rushing to get them ready in three weeks. What noise does this farmyard

animal make? When Boris Johnson visited a bakery near Bristol he was

really milking it. So we've had the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem manifesto

is and we are still waiting on the Ukip manifesto which is expected to

come next week. It is expected to appeal to his core supporters such

as a cut in foreign aid and that one in one out immigration policy.

Looking ahead to the weekend, no letup yet. Theresa May and Jeremy

Corbyn will be out campaigning. With Jeremy Corbyn still hoping to draw

the crowds at his rallies. With all that, do you have campaign fatigue?

We don't here. We have the stamina to go all the way. STUDIO: I will

put that question to you in other -- another week's time.

The swingometer has been a regular feature of election night coverage

It was designed to explain the unfolding results in visual terms.

What started off as a simple hand made prop has developed using

Jenny Kumah's been looking at the evolution of the device.

# It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing #.

If it's election night, there's a swingometer.

It first appeared on national TV in 1959, showing how movements

of votes from one party to another translated into parliamentary seats.

If the swing, for example, is one point consistently,

and on the average to the Conservatives,

they are not only in again, but they will have an increased

What started off as a crude looking cardboard model has become more

Nowadays it's all about virtual reality.

For the 2015 general election the BBC transformed this room

to show the Conservative path to power.

Long gone are the days of just showing the shifts

If we turn the swingometer to show the Conservative Lib Dems contest,

that was a big part of the story in 2015.

And with polls forecasting big gains for the Scottish National Party,

the first SNP and Labour swingometer featured.

So how did the concept of swing first come about?

And just how useful is all this data?

Well, it can all be traced back to this man.

As a student here in Oxford he was playing around

with the results of the 1945 election and he decided to record

I'd been desperately keen on cricket statistics and in the war

they stopped first-class cricket and I switched to

In my spare time I played around with past election results.

His theory led to the creation of the swingometer and decades

Is that what's called being a syphologist?

It's a somewhat indiscreet word that was coined by my mentor

When ten seats were in, you could predict the final

outcome on the assumption of reasonable regularity.

They wouldn't all have had the same swing, but the average in those

first seats came very near to the average swing

Nobody had ever done that before, analysed elections

And once you could look at the results in terms of percentages,

He was there at the beginning and astonishingly he is still alive,

still analysing elections, and only this week

But one of the key challenges for the 2017 swingometers could be

If you look at the polls at this election they suggest the Ukip vote

We don't know that's going to happen, but if it does,

and a lot of those voters switch to the Conservatives then

the Conservative vote share will go up but that doesn't necessarily mean

On the swingometer that will show up as a swing between Labour

and the Conservatives, but that won't be telling

you the story of what is happening at the election.

As smaller parties have played a bigger role

in the election result, more swingometers have featured

and in 2017 there will be a total of five with the first ever showing

the contest between the Conservatives and

We've been joined in the studio by veteran political

journalist Michael Crick, who you saw in Jenny's film there.

I understand you are writing a book on the great man himself. What

effect did he have on the way we cover elections? He has created his

own science, really, from that thing he described in 1945, where he took

The Times guide and he saw what it had was raw figures, and he turned

them into percentages and he spotted the trends and that led to the

concept of swing, the swingometer. This whole new area of sociology,

really, and statistics, and the reason it is called syphology, it

was a high table joke in Oxford, one of his colleagues wanted to

call it election ology, and he said that was a good course title, and

then one of his colleagues said, why don't we call it syphology. Equally

important, David Butler was the election night pundit for the BBC

from 1950, the first results programme, until 1979, he was the

John Curtis of his day. He campaigned in the 50s to help the

broadcasters because in the 1950s broadcasters were not allowed to

cover election campaigns. It was a self-denying ordinance because there

were fears that broadcasters would be bias and there were -- that was

something which affected the BBC until 1955. David Butler said this

was ridiculous. His second cousin Rab Butler was there, and they

agreed it was ridiculous, and they relaxed the rules and three weeks

later they had been Rochdale by-election, the first covered on

television, and the 1959 campaign was covered properly by

broadcasters. We have a lot to thank him for. What about the swingometers

themselves? They have become more sophisticated. David Button is very

modest about this, he said he didn't invent the swingometer, but yes, he

did -- David Butler. He actually did the drawings which suggested the

swingometer. He was not allowed to operate it at first. They made a

little model on the desk in the mid-50s, and it was run from BBC

Bristol, they experimented. Piloted in the regions? Yes, and then it

became big in 1959. David certainly invented it. In 2010 and 2015, we

have seen interest in a wide range of parties. We had a coalition

government and there were expectations that could be repeated

in 2015. In this election we are going back to more focus on the two

main parties again? Because the Lib Dems and Ukip are not doing as well

as they would hope. In the 1950s it was Labour versus the Conservatives,

and there was really nobody else. Increasingly it has got more and

more complex, and a third of the population don't vote for either of

them. We are returning to the 2-party system. It makes the idea of

a swing a bit more pertinent. Traditional conservative Labour

swing as opposed to swings between them and everybody else. We have

given parties against each other, rather than just the Conservatives

and Labour, so does that make it more interesting? Well, we are only

in the middle of a snapshot right now and we don't know which way it

is going to go in terms of whether the Labour Party is either going to

survive in the next 10-15 years, if it goes really badly. We could see

any party. I would not want to say we're returning to the days of

2-party swing. At least not to the days of it being the Conservatives

and Labour. You are not suffering from election fatigue, but are

people getting tired of elections, even with great swingometers? No,

and I think the question of swings and the swingometer is as pertinent

in this election as any as I have covered. You look at the changing

percentages between the different parties. Especially Labour and the

Conservatives, and you try to map family seats will be won if there is

a change of a certain amount -- how many seats. This could turn into a

general election result of 24 seats, and if you look at the polls and put

that on to the general election, you have a result of a 60 seat majority

that the Conservatives, but we think there could be more. There is the

additional factor, it looks as if there are big regional differences.

In the north of England, there are bigger swings which could deliver

the Conservatives an even bigger overall majority. But it is

difficult to predict, as we discovered in 2015 when the polls

had not predicted a small Conservative majority. When it came

to predicting swings, people were working a lot on the basis of their

being a coalition government and they got it wrong. There is a sense

that there isn't fatigue, almost the opposite. The publication of the

manifestos which is so different... That is sparking interest? And

fighting amongst people I meeting, there are real arguments and debates

because there is such a difference in the manifestos -- and fighting

amongst -- I'm finding amongst. Jeremy Corbyn is not just a nice

guy, he has this manifesto. That is a kind of leadership. People are

getting a bit worried about that and the whole interest in the

Progressive Alliance, stop the Tories, there is interest in the

Green Party full stop it has not been taken on by the Liberal

Democrats and the Labour Party. No, but this is a slight problem for the

swingometer, which is a bit one-dimensional. It was always

comparing the two, but you need more of a roundabout. There is a

difference between the swingometer and the concept of swing. People

have devised swingometers which involve other parties, but the

concept of swing will still be useful. What is fascinating, we live

in a world which is increasingly uniform, but swing has become less

uniform. It was much more uniform in the 1950s and one of the beauties of

modern elections, different areas of the country become, they are

becoming more diverse, compared with what they were in the early days of

David Butler's swing and swingometer. Michael, thanks for

joining us. That is what makes it unpredictable, amongst people under

40 there is a swing towards Jeremy Corbyn and there is a uncertainty

about registration. There has certainly been published at about

that. Thanks for coming in, Michael. Now, immigration remains

the ultimate political hot topic, and the Conservatives are hoping

to capitalise on it. They've revived the pledge

they made before the last two general elections -

reduce immigration down I'm so sorry, is it not a policy

to get immigration down? And we've had it in

previous manifestos... What's the difference

between an ambition and a policy? You've had it in previous manifestos

and palpably not delivered it. I assume by repeating it, there

was some meaning to it this time? Well, it's our aim to continue

to bear down on immigration. And of course for the first time

this is going to become easier There will be no further entitlement

to freedom of movement. Anyone in Bulgaria or Lithuania can

up sticks and come here... We've been joined by Gurnek Bains,

the chief executive of a new think-tank,

Global Future, which is arguing for a net immigration target

of at least 200,000. And Ukip's immigration spokesman,

John Bickley, joins us You say that the Conservative

Party's pledge to cut net migration to the tens of thousands is

impossible to fulfil without devastating economic consequences,

how so? I think there is a responsibility on governments when

they make a pledge like that to say how it will be met and what the

consequences will be. To put it in perspective, net migration is now

273. Tens of thousands target has been around for seven years. It has

been 20 years since we've been anywhere close to achieving the

100,000 target. Our view is that we cannot move towards that target

without serious economic consequences and social consequences

for the country. John Bickley, what do you say to that? I think the Tory

party are taking the British voters for falls, as has just been said. In

fact, two prime ministers have been telling us for several years that

they want to reduce it to the tens of thousands. But you want to take

it even lower, dull I'm afraid if I could just finished, I looked at the

Tory manifesto yesterday and first of all, I could not find anything on

immigration. It is tucked away in the back of the manifesto, it does

not have its own chapter heading. I eventually found it, three

paragraphs. There is a reference to tens of thousands, and some waffle

about some point in the future. This is just not acceptable for a

government which will get re-elected on the 8th of June, to mislead the

British people. Well, let's have a look at your policy. Paul Nuttall

said yesterday that there would be a one in, one out system for

immigration. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that it

would cost ?16 billion by 2020 - is that a price worth paying? I don't

believe that at all. Let's go back to 1973, when we voted to stay in

the European Union, then the ECA. For the next 22 years, up until when

Labour came to power, there was balanced immigration, and during

that time, the British economy became one of the most successful

economies in the world. The Tories handed over a booming economy to the

Labour government, they may even have handed over a surplus. We had

balanced immigration for 22 years. Let's put that to Gurnek Bains, so

come it is possible to achieve balanced immigration and not harm

the economy? That is a historical view. Because actually, there are a

whole set of trends in our report. The UK has a massively ageing

population. In those years, we were not at full employment, and we are.

When we hit full employment, in 2003, immigration was near 200,000.

We also have a productivity crisis in this country. If you put all that

together, you need net migration, we believe, in the region of 200,000,

looking forward. Looking backwards, I can see why people have pulled

this thing around, but actually, looking at the way the structure of

British society is going, to give you one example, Japan, which is a

society in full employment, ageing population, as net migration below

100,000, has stagnated economically. Gets put that to John Bickley, how

would our public services be run if there was an immediate, significant

drop in net migration? You have spoken about a five-year period? We

have spoken about an average over five years, and that would not be

happening for at least two years, before we leave the EU. Your guest

touched on something which I think is the elephant in the room. Our

productivity in this country is appalling. Out of the G7, we are

sixth, we are 35% behind America and Germany. And what do you think would

improve it? That is a debate in itself. You said it is terrible, but

what is your proposal? Just to assume that letting in hundreds of

thousands more people willy-nilly is going to solve our productivity

problem is not the answer to the question. What is? Well, we have to

improve the education that our kids are getting, we need to improve

training... And how long would that take, do you think? Of course it

would take time, which is why over a period of years, we are not looking

at a cliff edge with regard to immigration. We are talking two

years before we leave the EU and then five years to get this under

control. You have spoken about this before, who would sit on your

migration control commission? People such as the CBI, the TUC, chambers

of commerce, representatives from Ireland, Scotland, Wales and

England. The CBI are very unhappy about any changes to bring down

migration dramatically, because of the effect they say it would have on

business. So if they, like the OBR, include that net migration should be

200,000 a year, would you be prepared to go with that? Well, we

would set up the migration control commission with a specific target

EDDIE JORDAN: Be charged with meeting that target. The CBI, I'm

afraid, supports the big corporate scum are the big multinationals who

benefit from cheap Labour but do not pay corporation tax or their fair

share. Rather than just having the benefits of cheap Labour, for which

the taxpayer has to pick up the bill for the public services to service

that cheap Labour, we need to have a look at the CBI's claims and

actually start investing in technology. One thing stated in the

Conservative manifesto is that too much immigration makes it difficult

to build a cohesive society. Getting away from the figures, what do you

say to people who feel their communities have been changed beyond

recognition by immigration and want it reduced? Look, there has been a

high level of net migration, for a variety of reasons, some of which

are abating. We get that. At post-Brexit, I think as we have the

right to control our borders, I think we need a rational, open

debate about the levels of migration. But you don't want them

to come down? I think there may be some natural decline, but we need an

open conversation about what is the level of migration. In terms of

social cohesion, the thing that drives, and will hit social cohesion

most, is economic stagnation. And the social impact of a loss of

migration is that people will see local construction firms in their

areas fail, they might not be able to get carers for their parents,

they will go to the NHS, who will not have the staff, they will see

their high street, restaurants, hotels, suffering and potentially

going bust. And the productivity miracle, Japan was supposed to have

that, it has the lowest level of productivity... Why can't we train

more people here to do those jobs? We are on full employment, you can't

mushroom workers out of nowhere. Both of you, sorry, we have run out

of time. As well as the magnificent seven

of big-name political parties, there are also a whole range

of smaller parties trying to rustle up some votes

in the general election - today, we'll be hearing from a party

looking to push back in 2008 and believes that the state

should be as small as possible. for government is national defence

and maintaining the rule of law. The party wants to see MPs replaced

with Swiss-style direct They say the welfare

state is unsustainable, and is essentially just borrowing

money from unborn generations. committed to abolishing

a range of taxes, including income, inheritance

and capital gains taxes. In principle, they believe

in the free movement of peoples, provided migrants receive

no state support. We've been joined in the studio

by the party's deputy Welcome to The Daily Politics. You

say you believe in a small state and abolishing most taxes, but you

propose attacks to pay off the national debt, so are you just

replacing one set of taxes with one very large one? It is a really good

point. It is something that was wrestled with. One of the key

principles we have is that not only do we have freedom but we also have

to take responsibility. I think it is an important question. We have a

generation that has been clamouring for greater and greater public

services, but in a way, has also been demanding that somebody else

pay for those services. As a result, we have a large national debt in the

region of ?1.5 trillion. The question is, how do we as a

generation take responsibility for that? So you just think one big tax,

I do not see the difference? , that might be an option for us. The

difficulty is, how do we pay off this debt, do we pay it off now or

do we leave it to our children? Let's have a look, you're suggesting

a 10% corporation tax, considerably lower than it is at the moment.

Howard that help pay off the deficit and the debt? It is a good question.

It boils down to a simple ethical principle. The ethical principle is

that each individual works hard and earns money. We all have a right to

own our life and do what we want with our time, provided we cause no

harm to other people. From that ethical principle, we always argue

that we should reduce the level of taxation as much as is possible. But

paying off the debt at the same time. Is it really credible, your

modern? We believe that each individual has to take some

responsibility for themselves. At the end of the day, there is an

element of choice, whether each individual works or not. Do we as a

generation take responsibility for the deficit and pay it off as

quickly as we can all...? This is an interesting question, the

Conservatives in their manifesto have said they will eliminate the

deficit, they originally said by 2015, now it is 2025 - does Will

Taylor have a point but are we there is an interesting overlap between

the Libertarian Party and bits of the Conservative Party. There are

people who want to minimise things as much as possible, in the same

way. But what is interesting is that Theresa May, yesterday, set her

stance against the Libertarian Party's philosophy and that wing of

her own party, by saying, nobody is in a vacuum, everybody owes whatever

success they have to the society that they come from. We have debts

and obligations to the community and the state and the society which

helps us come successful individuals, we have to pay for

those obligations and debts. So, Theresa May yesterday explicitly

rejected any kind of libertarian philosophy in the way that she wants

to run the Conservative Party. It is interesting whether or not that

might push some people out of the Conservative Party. If they are

upset about it, those people, they're keeping quiet at the moment.

You oppose the idea of a welfare state - why? Again, if boils down to

the principle, that we work hard, we are our own money, and therefore we

believe we should have more freedom and choice in how that money is

spent. What about health care and schools, if you went private? Are

not suggesting private schooling. What about inequality, it is a

matter of wealth, including private wealth and corporate wealth, don't

you need the state to provide some kind of challenge to sources of

power which are to do with wealth? I agree that there are lots of

problems in society. The Libertarian Party, like all parties, wants to

solve those problems, we are effectively on the same side. What

we argue about is how. We ask a simple question - is it possible to

solve those problems by giving people more freedom and more choice?

Now, sometimes, it isn't. In that case there may be a role for

government. But if it is possible, is it not right to at least try?

Will Taylor, on that question being posed, we will let you go, thank

you. At the end of a campaign week

which saw manifesto launches from most of the main parties,

we thought it would be a good moment to see how the bookies are viewing

the upcoming election. Katie Baylis from Betfair joins us

live outside Parliament. Take us through the odds. It is

really interesting, and as you would expect, on our two main markets for

the 8th of June to overall majority, the Tories, massive odds-on

favourites. A Labour overall majority, that would be a huge

upset, but is currently at 54-1. Interestingly, though, in the last

24 hours, since the release of the Tory manifesto, the Labour odds have

shortened. So perhaps a little bit of backing for Labour off the back

of that. Thank you very much for that, Katie Baylis.

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

The question was, how has Donald Trump described

the investigation into alleged collusion between his presidential

So, Sam and Hilary, what's the correct answer?

B) unbelievable? No. A) a witch hunt. It was indeed!

Thanks to Sam, Hilary and all my guests.

Adam Fleming will be presenting another edition

of his Election Broom Cupboard show on the BBC Politics Facebook

Andrew will be on BBC One on Sunday at 11am, with The Sunday Politics.

And I'll be here at noon on Monday, with more comprehensive coverage