26/05/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


The hunt for the network behind the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi


continues as another arrest is made and the terror threat


remains at critical amidst fear of another device -


In the wake of Monday's attack Jeremy Corbyn says we need


a Foreign Policy that reduces rather than increases our


Is the Labour leader right that the war on terror isn't working?


We have their manifestos - but do the numbers in Labour


and Conservative spending plans add up?


And the south west of England used to be painted yellow.


Can the Lib Dems make a comeback in their former heartlands?


All that in the next hour and joining us for the whole


hour are Ian Collins - he presents a radio show


on LBC, and Rafael Behr who writes for the Guardian.


First - eight men are now in custody in connection with Monday's bombing


There's concern that the bomb carried by Salman Abedi was not


the only device made by the terrorists -


which is why the terror threat remains at critical, meaning another


This morning, the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, convened another meeting


of the government's emergency committee, Cobra.


We are still in the midst of this terror threat, with the threat level


remaining at critical. How much support do you think the security


services and the police are going to need? Clearly there will be things


going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. At this stage so


close to the atrocity of Monday, and with that still present in people's


minds, I think the government and security services are asking for our


trust and confidence that they are in control of events and doing what


can be done. We are very much in that place where the politics of


this have to be dialled down while we wait for the present emergency to


pass. Amber Rudd said she did not expect this critical phase where we


have the army on the streets to last more than a few days. But inevitably


variable be broader questions about whether the right resources have


been allocated -- there will be broader questions. I'm not sure we


are contrary in that place yet as a country to have a very heated


political debate about that, but maybe we are. That will shift in the


next you days. It is a difficult balance to strike because


campaigning has started again, but in all of our minds are the images


after the Manchester Arena bombing and the outpouring of grief that has


followed. In all of our minds, apart from Jeremy Corbyn, it seems, after


the disgraceful episode we have seen and his comments about using an


attack like this to further his election campaign. Which is clearly


what he's doing, what ever way you slice it, and that very unhelpful.


The other thing about this, we see this every single time we have an


attack, the intelligence services pick up and make multiple arrests


and that says they already know where many of these people are, and


if they already knew where they were, and we will talk about this


later, but if they already knew, why would those people not already in


custody? It is the lack of any coherent common-sense approach which


makes people are scratching their head. We have done the vigils and


praying, but can we have some action? You have raised that issue.


What is interesting, recently don't know the attacks that have been


prevented. True. To suggest there is a simple template that could have


been used but wasn't, that isn't necessarily... The security services


say there are 3000 people they are interested in. 500 active


investigations. You could argue the security services are using this to


call for more support and more resources, but Salman Abedi was


known, not one of the 500, but his case was under review and people


will ask questions about that. Absolutely. You have this problem


essentially, people can be suspected of involvement without having


committed a crime, and therefore if the call is that you scoop up


everyone who has been suspected of involvement in terrorist thinking,


discussions, this can lead to terror plotting, then you are a criminal


and you can be arrested, so this is not necessarily as clear as you


might think, to find everyone who is thinking what thoughts and either


lock them up. No one is arguing for that, but by the same token it


appears that there is clearly a lack of something, no one can quite


identify. Everyone says kind words and we are sorry for what has


happened. We don't want to upset that particular community, but


nothing is really being done. We saw the ongoing investigation and the


fact the people are looking for what they think is the extension of a


terror network or some sort of bomb-making materials. We can hear


from the Home Secretary Amber Rudd. I've just shared Cobra to give an


update on the atrocious incident on Monday night. 22 people have died


and nearly 60 people still in hospital, and meanwhile the


investigation continues and eight people are in custody, it is a live


operation and that will continue. In the meantime I but like to thank the


police for the really good work that they are doing -- I would. The level


of threat will remain at critical while the operation continues. The


military are continuing to support the police under the operation, and


parents as members of the military assisting in that, and I want to


thank them -- and a thousand members of the military are assisting in


that. That was Theresa May. -- that was Amber Rudd.


Now - Theresa May is in Sicily this morning at a meeting of the G7 group


We're joined from there by BBC's Deputy political


What are we expecting to hear from Theresa May this morning? The G7


meetings will start very quickly, they have been gathering and


watching a spectacular fly past from the Italian air force will stop the


first discussion is about counterterrorism and security and


they will be looking to reach agreement on that, and there will be


a statement of agreement later in the day. Theresa May would like to


contribute her thoughts on the importance of tackling online


extremism. Getting the major economies to put pressure on


internet companies to identify dangerous content, and block


dangerous individuals and to report relevant material to the authorities


and to get going on the international front to deal with


what is an international problem. She has said the fight against Isis


has moved from the battlefield to the internet, and clearly a relevant


point, but it is a much broader conversation than simply online.


What kind of support issue likely to get from other world leaders? Later


in the day, there will be a statement ahead of the end of this


G7 summit, by way of an interim statement which will state the


agreement of the leaders to work more closely together. In


confronting terrorism on various fronts. You can compile a long list


of those areas for action. Tackling areas of funding and action in terms


of sharing knowledge and expertise in dealing with radicalisation, all


of these things can be helped by one partner with another as well as


tackling a particular nation. There will be a joint front at the G7 but


it is an enormous problem and it won't be sold here by any means. --


solved. This is a small measure which could be perceived, compared


to what needs to be done broadly across Britain and the rest of the


world. Will there be any action? Indisputably this is a small thing,


when you look at the scale of the problem, countering radicalisation,


for example, that is a problem with very deep roots inside communities.


You could argue if Britain's way of dealing with this, the Prevent


strategy is effective or not, and I think there are arguing is to be


made on both sides of the question. You can broaden this out to


questions of conflict and boots on the ground and air planes overhead


and how effective that is or isn't. Yesterday we saw Nato countries


agreeing to join the coalition against Isis in Syria and Iraq, that


means a long engagement, helping hostile flights and that kind of


thing, and you made the point very well. This is not a problem that


will yield to a particular individual solution. Even then, no


matter how many solutions, it will not be dealt with any time soon. You


are close to the Theresa May camp and following the dreadful terror


attack in Manchester. We are now resuming campaigning in this general


election. And Uppal has indicated -- and a poll has indicated a dramatic


drop of support for the Conservatives, they are now ahead of


Labour by just five points, according to one poll. What is in


the mood of the Theresa May camp? This is just one opinion poll. If


there are other polls which support the idea that their lead has shrunk


significantly, there will be some consternation in the Tory ranks. The


polls to move this way and that in the course of the campaign, and at


the end you often see a result which was not dissimilar to that at the


outset. As to Theresa May, I was up close and personal -- I have not


been up close and personal with her, but she is giving a news conference


and it will be interesting to see how the transition from the post


Manchester outrage phase of a political truce moves very rapidly


into one of engagement. I don't think the Prime Minister will be


attacking Jeremy Corbyn on the question of security. She doesn't


need to. That is front of the agenda and that will be there for some


time. What do you make? It is one poll which has suggested a big drop


and you could understand if there were jitters in the Theresa May


camp. They're absolutely is. They are the architects of their own


downfall. Theresa May still comes ahead of Jeremy Corbyn on the issue


of security and personal ratings, which suggests it might not be


because of Manchester, it is probably because of the disastrous


manifesto. Someone said to me, why the Tories not costing their


manifesto? They are not giving you anything, there is nothing to cost,


frankly, there's not much in there. It is a rather bleak retail


offering? Yes. Jeremy Corbyn's offering is a wish list, very nice


things of things that people will get. Theresa May wanted to fight a


presidential style campaign on the proposition that you could trust her


strong stable, strong stable, we knew the mantra, but if that is sure


position, you cannot let your manifesto slip through your fingers


and do a massive U-turn -- if that is your position. I'm not sure


Theresa May had established enough of a record of achievement to fight


began a campaign she wanted to fight. It was very brittle and that


is why it is changing. This is mid-campaign turbulence and we need


to be careful about that. Why bring up things like fox hunting and the


social care thing did not even need to be in their manifesto? Some


people have said it was brave for them to tackle it. It has backfired


on them. It is complacency. Maybe they can say they are justified, the


older people who are going to turn out, who are backing Theresa May, by


huge margin, they are in the right kind of seats and maybe they thought


they can afford to put up the manifesto that gives them license to


do difficult things. They might have underestimated the way that Labour


could organise their own counter opposition.


Monday's suicide bomb was the latest manifestation of Islamist


Sweden, Germany, and Belgium have all suffered major attacks in recent


years but the worst affected country has been France - often perpetrated


As a result, the country has been grappling with difficult


questions around integration, and national identity -


questions that are now also being asked in this country.


Ellie Price has taken a look at what happened in France and how


January 2015, a gun assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo.


In November that year, on the streets of Paris,


gunmen and suicide bombers hit a concert hall, major stadium,


restaurants and bars in Paris, leaving 130 people dead.


In July 2016, at least 84 people were killed in Nice after a lorry


ploughed through a crowd celebrating Bastille Day.


There were numerous other attacks, as well, on a smaller


240 people have been killed by terrorists since 2015.


In the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attack


the French government mobilised 10,000 troops on its own


Following the Paris attacks, the state of emergency


was introduced, meant as a temporary measure, it's been in place ever


since, giving the authorities power to set curfews,


And it granted greater surveillance powers to the security services.


Most of the attacks were perpetrated by home-grown terrorists with a


majority on the government's high secure the watch list.


Aside from missed opportunities by security services,


many critics say this also points to failures


in France's attempts to


In an attempt to address that, in 2011, France


became the first European country to ban the full face Islamic


But it was a controversial decision, that some


argued created more problems than it solved.


With one of the biggest populations in Western Europe,


France is still coming to terms with its relationship with Islam.


And I'm joined now by the French political scientist, Giles Kepel.


Welcome to the daily politics, in the wake of a major attack like this


week's in Manchester, carried out by a terrorist born and lived in this


country, it is inevitable there will be questions about integration,


France has been grappling with this issue and I think it is fair to say


it has not been successful No country has been successful I have


to say. We suffer 139 people who died between the attack on Charlie


Hebdo and the stabbing of the Catholic priest in his church in


Normandy in July 2016. What was very striking was that even though the


terrorist and the Jihadist tried to take the French presidential


election hostage of that, there were no successful attacks since then.


From July last year, to the first round of presidential election,


except for a man who gunned a policeman in Paris, who had a


criminal record, the French authorities have been able to sort


of get deep into the Jihadist networks and foil most of the


planned attacks. Four Jihadists it is an important thing to enter


institutionalised politics to torpedo them. This they could not


do, because they hoped Marine Le Pen would win and they can say the


French or the Brits are racist and the vote of the extreme right. So


you have no hope in integrating into society and you have to cling to


your ascribed identity. Look what they did in Manchester, they were


able to torpedo momently the campaign was suspended. For them


this is a success. What I'm interested in is the causes behind


this Jihadist movement and why it arises from home grown terrorists in


countries like France and Britain and there is anything that can be


shared in terms of lessons. Fraps France has a different approach and


therefore would you agree a different type of relationship


between minorities and the wider population? To an extent, but when


you deal with those things, it is also an issue of global Jihadism and


what we are confronting and this I explain in the book is the third


wave of Jihadism. That is to say in 2005, Syrian engineer who was


trained in France, but lived for a long time in London, which at the


time had auld the chief Islamist. It was decided Osama Bin Laden had


failed and Europe was to be the locus of Jihad and it was the soft


underbelly of the west and a bottom up Jihadism that would see, would be


soldiers, the disenfranchised Muslims in the west and this creates


a new understanding of Jihadism. France was hardly hit. It is now


less hit. And the focus has shifted on to Germany and to Britain. But


France has been hit in a very major way and some of the accusations have


been France's failure to integrate parts of its Muslim community and


Britain would probably say that they have done a better job of that in


broad terms. So what I want to get to the bottom of is do you think in


the end France's policies to things like banning the burka, have they


further alienated the Muslim community or have they been the


right thing to do. I don't think they have alienated the us mum


community more. We heard people bragging here that you know the


reason why France was attacked, because it was too secularist. So


you had this great thing with sharia council reigns in parts of


Birmingham and the man who attacked Westminster was someone who came


from those areas. The blame game between France and Britain is


irrelevant. The issue is to understand why this Jihadist


ideology has been able to capitalise on disenfranchisement, whether


because people think they're too secular or too communalist, but we


are facing a shared threat and I think lessons from what happened in


France and from the fact that the French authorities were able to foil


those attacks and that the presidential election was not


hostage is important. Let me bring in my other guests. Do you think the


key question is here is why do people become Jihadists, the


suggestion is some are just criminals, some are very vulnerable


and vulnerable to be brainwashed by more sophisticated people. And does


our domestic policy play a part? This is a massive question. What is


interesting is you have to disentangle what are causes of


terrorism, the causes that lead people to go down the path of


radicalisation and what is moral culpability. Jeremy Corbyn said


there is an element of western policy used by Jihadist in their


recruitment and can be seen as a provocation. That is different from


saying the west has morally brought this on itself. You have to


understand that ultimately there, people have agency and somebody


chooses to kill innocent people, that is an absolute moral thing you


have to condemn and then separately bring your analysis on to how did


that person get into a situation where they adopted a view of the


world that made them think they had a moral imperative to attack. I


think it is about more, the idea it is about foreign policy and stuff we


have done is a bit of a red herring, if you look at countries, we have


mentioned Belgium and Sweden. And France. Madrid of course. I Jakarta


there was an attack. What about integration policies at home have


they worked or fail? I think they have failed. We have almost been a


victim of our tolerance. But has it worked? Clearly not? Do you agree,


you say you're a man of the left, but you are critical of the left in


France, because you agree with the comment made there that actually the


left has been too accommodating of Islamists in France. I would like to


go back to the issue of Jeremy Corbyn. We are going to talk about


that in a moment. If you could answer that question. Well, you


know, Francois Hollande was the first man who was... And we were the


worst targeted people. Those remarks are not interfering to British


politics. S. Integration, we have all failed. It is not because we are


culprits, because we are facing an economic model that has changed and


we are into the digital economy and the French were among the Europeans


least able to manage this change, because of the heavily unionised


system and other issues. This is why Emmanuel Macron was elected, because


this is a man who campaigned for Europe and no politician in is this


country. That is why he won. Yes, The Thought he could address this


issue of disenfranchisement and this is a major point that we have to


take into consideration. But in other parts of Europe politic has


been polarised, let's talk about the question you did want to answer


before, which is do you think Jeremy Corbyn has a point, do you agree


with the idea that foreign policy has to some extent arguably perhaps


driven some of what's happened? Well the mix of foreign policy and


domestic policy is important and the borders have disappeared. Where are


we? Are we in Europe or not. Is North Africa part of France. The


empire strikes paradigm... Your policies have contributed do you


think? They're part and parcel and Isis always claim it is retaliation


against a bombing or the territory. You don't murder children because of


foreign policy. Absolutely. What they say and and this why I think


Jeremy Corbyn buys into the Islamist narrative. I follow the chat rooms


of those people and they say you kill our children, because of the


bombings and so we kill your children. It is a tit for tat. This


is the propaganda to galvanise. . It does not work when you kill


children, there was an eight-year-old killed in Manchester,


on 19th March in Toulouse a man killed three young Jewish pupils at


a school. They would say because Jewish pupils would be soldiers in


the Israeli army in the future. So we are killing the would be


soldiers. This you know, functions only for the most hard core people.


I think they do not manage to mobilise people. You have violence,


violence after a while if it does not work, turn against its own


perpetrators. This is what the Jihadists had to change their models


chl Thank you. Now, with the general election


firing on all cylinders once again, Jeremy Corbyn has given his first


speech of the restarted campaign. Speaking in London today,


he focused on counter-terrorism and presenting what he described


as Labour's different approach "No government can prevent


every terrorist attack." But he went on to say


that it is the responsibility of government to minimise the risk


posed by terrorists. Under a Labour government,


there would be "more He also said that the security


services will get more And Mr Corbyn said that,


in the view of many experts, there are "connections


between wars our government has supported or fought in other


countries, such as Libya, But he also said that his


assessment "in no way reduces He went on to say that an "informed


understanding of the causes of terrorism" is an essential part


of an effective security strategy. And Jeremy Corbyn said


that the so-called "war on terror He said that a future Labour


government would think of what he called a "smarter way"


to reduce the threat of terrorism. Here's some of what the Labour


leader had to say. We must be brave enough


to admit that the war We need a smarter way to reduce


the threat from countries that nurture terrorists


and generate terrorism. That's why I set out


Labour's approach to foreign It is focused on strengthening


our national security We must support our Armed Forces,


Foreign Office, international development professionals


and diplomats, engaging with the world in a way that


reduces conflict and builds Seeing the army on our own streets


today is a stark reminder that the current approach isn't


really working so well. So I would like to take a moment


to speak to our soldiers You are doing your duty as you have


done so many times before. I want to assure you that


under my leadership you will only be deployed abroad when there


is a clear need and only when there is a plan that


you have the resources to do your job and secure an outcome


that delivers lasting peace. We'll be speaking to the shadow


International Trade Secretary, First let's hear from former Labour


MP, Tom Harris who is in Glasgow. Is it appropriate to make a speech


like the one Jeremy Corbyn has made today? It is appropriate to talk


about the threat of terrorism, entirely appropriate that we have


that debate because we haven't really had that debate in this


country so far, and if we aren't going to do it in the aftermath of


the terrible events, when else to do it? But I have grave reservations


about the tone and content of what Jeremy Corbyn is saying.


Essentially, and I have not read every single word of the speech, but


as far as I can see from the report, he has spoken about the cob ability


of the West which is a theme he has pursued for the last 30 years -- cob


ability. He has not said anything about Islamism which is the root


cause of the domestic and international terrorism. He says


some of the foreign policy could contribute to some of the violent


acts which have been perpetrated in recent years. He is buying into the


Islamist agenda entirely. If you look at what Isis are saying, they


are the most obvious representation of Islamism in the world. They


actually have said unequivocally that even if you stop invading our


lands and stop torturing us, we will hate you and we will continue to


attack you. Islamism is about hating Western values and hating democracy


and hating the fact that in this country and other Western


democracies women, heaven forbid, are able to leave their homes


without their husbands permission. That offends Islamist 's and even if


there was no invasion of any other countries, they would still hate us


and they would still kill us. The World Trade Centre was attacked in


1993, first of all, ten years before the invasion of Iraq. Is Jeremy


Corbyn like to say that the war on terror hasn't worked? -- right to


say. We don't know what level of threat we would have if the military


action had not been taken. If anything we have been too tolerant


of militant Islamism, we have tried to kid ourselves that we could come


to some kind of understanding, but Islamism is a dreadful death


worshipping philosophy which needs to be defeated militarily and


domestically through policy and there is no alternative to the end


of this particular conflict. You voted in favour of the Iraq war. Has


Jeremy Corbyn been proven right by being against it from the start? I


don't think so. He has been against Iraq as he has been against every


military intervention. They intervened in Kosovo to stop the


murder of thousands of Muslim civilians and Jeremy Corbyn demanded


that the military action should stop. Let's think, if we stop


military interventions, what happens when the Islamist 's continued to


kill our children when they go to pop concerts? What happens when we


have done everything the Islamist people demand, what happens when we


stop sending troops abroad to do good and yet we are still the


victims of this evil philosophy? What do people like Jeremy Corbyn


then say? Tom Harris, thanks. And I'm joined now by the Shadow


International Trade Secretary, Barry Gardiner and Conservative


Johnny Mercer is in What do you say in response to Tom


Harris who has said Jeremy Corbyn has bought into the Islamist agenda?


I say not at all, because what Jeremy is pointing out, that there


is absolutely no justification for the horrific events in Manchester,


absolutely none, nothing can justify that and there is no moral


equivalence in any way between British action abroad anti-terrorist


action that attacked that concept -- and the terrorist action. What


Jeremy Corbyn has said is in tune with what the US intelligence has


pointed out, and with what Stella Rimington has said, two former heads


of MI5, one says, whatever the merits of putting the end to Saddam


Hussein, the war was a distraction from the peashooter of Al-Qaeda and


an increase to the terrorist threat -- from the pursuit of Al-Qaeda. It


provided an arena for jihad for which she had called so many of his


supporters included -- for which he had called and so many of his


supporters including British citizens, travelled to fight. You


are saying some British policy has led to the attack in Manchester? No,


there is no direct causal relationship. What part of British


policy would you have changed to prevent subsequent terrorist


attacks? What she is saying... I want to know what you are saying. It


is the same thing. You cannot ignore the recruiting Sergeant effect of


those conflicts and the way they were conducted without having


stabilisation in the country in the aftermath as the primary focus


because we know that these terrorist groups actually thrive on


instability. So would you have air strikes in Libya? Let me be clear, I


was one of the people who did vote against the air strikes in Libya.


And look at what is happening in Libya today, women are being sold in


slave markets in Libya. Because of the complete failure to stabilise


that country. Johnny Mercer, there has been a political vacuum in Libya


and Britain has been criticised for not having followed up the air


strikes that were conducted and Salman Abedi's family at his from


Libya. -- is from Libya. I would say to anyone watching that the Libyan


intervention was done on a very specific challenge of rescuing a


group of people who were going to get massacred at the time. What has


happened in that country is of deep regret, you can see the challenges


that there, but do not accept that doing nothing is always the answer


and I think Jeremy Corbyn's speech but lies a complete


misunderstanding. These terrorists use this narrative after they have


done something, things like the world trade centre, that happened


before Iraq. It is making things up to get elected, and he could be


Prime Minister, the fact that is extraordinary. It is not about doing


nothing. What Jeremy has always been clear on and what many people in


this country are clear about, military action where it is


sanctioned by the United Nations and where it is done in concert with


other countries and where it can have a clear plan to stabilise the


country that is being attacked or intervened on, that is something...


One of the military interventions that Jeremy supported was East Timor


which have those bits in place, and that was what the big conflict that


Robin Cook resigned about over, Iraq, the plan in place will stop


Kosovo, what happened at the end was Russia had to be brought into play


to make sure that we had the wider international community to broker


peace. Tony Blair went in without the United Nations, Jeremy Corbyn


would not have done that. Yes, he would have wanted wider


international involvement, and if you look at the end in Kosovo, that


is what has taken place. There always has to be a United Nations


security resolution before Britain gets involved in any military


action? Not if it is to defend an ally or to stop our country from


being under direct attack. Jeremy Corbyn said the UK cannot be


protected and cared for on the cheap. He's referring to the cuts


that have been made by the coalition government and the Conservative


government since to the police and our Armed Forces, and he is right.


He's not right. Those cuts have taken place. Counterterrorism has


been protected since 2010 and increased since 2015, and defence


expenditure is going up, but the specific budget you are talking


about, counterterrorism, going against these threats, it


constitutes a lot of efforts, the Prevent programme, within the


intelligence services are the police couldn't you have a certain amount


of money and you try to challenge what is going on -- and the police,


you have a certain amount of money. Does that mean we have less


capability? No, it doesn't. If it was simply in numbers then North


Korea would have a great army, but they don't. You can understand why


the Labour Party is either capitalising if you want to use that


word on the fact the Tories have long claimed that you are the party


of law and order and the Armed Forces, but when you look at the


figures the number of soldiers has gone down from 102,300, now to just


70 8000. It doesn't make sense. If you are going to talk tough after a


big attack like this, and it looks as if we don't have enough boots on


the ground, are people going to lose faith? The issue with the candid


intelligence -- counterintelligence fight, much of it is kept from the


public for reasons of necessity. The idea that we have done something


which is a failure is pretty offensive, and how could Barry and


Jeremy and anybody else, with their magic roundabout on foreign policy,


think what UK would be like without the efforts we have seen from our


great security services who have been resourced. There are challenges


about the economy which crashed under the Labour government in 2010,


but how could anyone know what the UK would look like today? It is


pretty disingenuous. Then you look at the War on terror and what people


have contributed for the freedoms we enjoy, yes, one has got through in


Manchester, it is terrible for the people, but let's have reality. We


live in a safe country and we are very fortunate, we have great


security services, yes, we must work hard. It is not wholly disingenuous


to imply that... For Jeremy Corbyn to imply that there is a link


between our intervening in conflicts abroad and the problems at home? How


do you explain the attacks that have occurred in the Muslim world which


have killed thousands of Muslims? Is that our foreign policy to blame?


What about the deadly attacks in Madrid question what they were


involved in the Iraq war, but that killed 192 people -- in Madrid? Was


that down to foreign policy? Let me be clear about this. The Islamist


worldview existed prior to all of these things and it is there, but


what Jeremy is talking about and what others are talking about. Is


the radicalisation of young Muslims in this country. As a result of


British foreign policy? Is helped by then using it as a cause celebre,


but going back to the point you were making about the policing and the


front line... Which way did you vote in the Iraq war? I voted in favour.


That contradicts everything you have said in his interview, you voted the


something that acted as a recruiting act. I did, but maybe that was my


mistake. Within four weeks of that conflict I was in the House of


Commons, we had the debate, and I was arguing that we will not doing


what we should have been about stabilising the country and leaving


people from the Army with their weapons to go back without any


income and that is exactly the chaos that we left behind. Can I just


finish. It is important to get the narrative here, and the logic,


because as we know, many attacks took place before the recent foreign


policy intervention. In terms of, are you saying that our foreign


policy should now be guided in order to avoid being a recruiting Sergeant


and should be guided on not upsetting anyone? If we are going to


have a foreign policy that is not going to act as a recruiting


Sergeant, anyway, like Libya, because the Manchester Thunder's


family were opponents of Gaddafi in Libya. -- Manchester bomber's


family. The Abedi family had fled Libya and come back here, but then


they went back to Libya. In a way they should have welcomed the


intervention. But they didn't, and we had a chaotic state in the


country which enabled the terrorist groups to set up their camps and


train people and to radicalise them through that warped ideology. The


point about the policing, the police are the front line intelligence


service with our communities in the UK and we have seen so many young


men from the UK who have become radicalised and who have become the


terrorist bombers and we need the police on the front line talking


with the community and gain their confidence and having that


intelligence. And on this occasion we know that for- five times that


was made but it didn't get through. -- 4-5 times. One of the points


Barry has raised is a valid one in terms of the aftermath of these


conflicts. In the case of Iraq and Libya, Britain left these countries


to chaos? Yes, of course. Famously we now know to the cost of many that


lady what happened afterwards, the legacy that should have taken place


after Iraq and Afghanistan, it wasn't good enough. We can only


learn from that going forward, but that isn't the reason why some


decides to blow up small children in an Arena in Manchester. Jeremy


Corbyn, and Barry, you know Jeremy is on a hiding to nothing, just look


at his back story and where he comes from and what he stands for. He's a


pacifist CMD member, and when he was asked if he would take out an Isis,


he couldn't even sire -- CMD member. He wants to be taken seriously on


these issues. And this is a weakness for Jeremy Corbyn because people


have spoken at his past associations with members of the IRA or any


connection he might have with groups like Hamas and in the end it is a


trust issue for the British people when they come to vote.


It is problematic when you look at his record calling Hamas friends and


associating with Gerry Adams within weeks of Brighton bombing. This will


make people see him as something who sees the British state as the bad


guys. The thing I find problematic about his speech is it is


retrospective and you can apply all sorts of frameworks to why we have


the causes of terror, but the proposition he is putting to public


is we should have a smarter policy. Of course we should. But I still


haven't heard anything that articulates what that consists of.


There is no diplomatic engagement with Isis and no political solution


available for negotiating with these people. What he is offering is kind


of an elaborate hand-wringing, I don't see what his proposal is. On


that we have to ends. Thank you. Manifestos are always full of fine


sounding commitments, but as John Major used to say "fine


words butter no parsnips" - and voters want to know how


all those extra billions for schools Which taxes are going up


and which benefits are being cut? Something some politicians seem


to have trouble with. # Five, four, three, # Two # One.


How much will they cost? They will cost... It will cost... Where will


the extra eight billion come from? What we have done if you look at our


record is shown we can put records amounts into the NHS and ensure we


are building the strong economy, that is what we will do. What is


Britain's deficit at the moment? If I can say to you, if I can say to


you, what is happening as well in terms of day-to-day expenditure. Did


somebody pass you a piece of paper. How much are you going to raise from


cutting winter fuel payments. It depends where we set the level. We


will consult on that. It costs about two billion. Most of that? We will


see, because we haven't set the... Exactly. It is uncosted black hole.


How are you going to pay for something worth 40 billion. Would be


patient. A couple of more days. Where will it come from. It will be


a priority area. So you haven't been able to show us a revenue line where


this eight billion will come from? Now, the Institute for


Fiscal Studies, or IFS, has analysed Labour and Conservative


manifestos and compared their plans on public spending, the public


finances and reforms To discuss their findings,


Carl Emmerson, their Deputy Director The parties tell us their policies


are costed, respect they? No they take risks. Labour has a plan to


increase public spending considerably and they would keep the


deficit around its current level so, borrow more than the Conservatives


and raise taxes significantly. They think that would get them about 49


billion. We agree they would get a lot of money from their tax policy,


but even 41 billion would be optimistic and they will get less in


the longer run. If Labour there is a risk, what will you do if your


raises don't get what you expect. We don't think they would bring in the


money held in want. Would they spend pack or put other taxes up? You say


Labour are being optimistic, but to be fair they have put some costings


together, because presumably you wouldn't have been able to make your


judgments? Yes we can go through the numbers and see where they have gone


for an optimistic estimate and where we think they have just made a


mistake. And we can see they would raise a lot of tax revenue and we


can say we think 41 billion rather than 49 would still be optimistic.


Open question about what they would do with that short fall. You say


Labour's taxes would be the highest in peacetime? With the increase of


41 billion, our numbers, not their, they think they would do more, it


would put tax above the level in the 80s and the 60s, so the highest


level since 49/50. That is a long while. If you compare it


internationally, lots of advanced economies have higher tax burdens.


It would move us up to about mid table. It would move the UK to a


Canadian position rather than a Scandinavian position. You say that


Labour's public sector pay plans will cost ?9 billion extra. How did


you work that out? We have looked at how much we spends on public sector


pay and included the pension and national insurance distributions,


unther the Conservative Government they could keep the 1% pay cap that


would take a big risk with recruitment and retention. If Labour


puts up the pay in line with private sector workers you could mitigate a


lot of risks about recruitment and retention. But there would be a 9


billion rise in pay bills. But you said this is a retail offer being


made by Labour, is it appealing? It is about mood music in how people


look at these things. You're looking at Theresa May's manifesto which may


be honest and fiscally up front about we haven't got any money and


we can't spend and we have to look at social care and we will put more


into it, Labour, we are not giving you anything above that, a few


school meals, Labour have a few list that does not include the cost of


re-nationalisation. That isn't in the spending plans. That would be a


mini-Brexit. What do you think of the fact there were no costings for


re-nationalisation. It is correct to say there are not. They have said


they would nationalise the Royal Mail and have public sector


companies operating. It would be like a mini-Brexit. It would add to


public sector debt. Can you estimate the figures? No, we have no sense of


the scale or timing. We know it would mean they would be on course


to miss their fiscal target. They have promised to balance the books


on day-to-day spending. Now the Tories, you say the Tories will cut


?11 billion from benefits, reducing the incomes of the lowest paid


significantly. Is that in the manifesto. It is a continuation of


policy. Universal credit is much less generous. It was a glaring


omission. It was not being fully honest. That is a big amount of


money, which of course it is not in the manifesto, the Conservatives can


argue it is continuing Government policy, but ?11 billion being cut


from benefits will hit working age households. And we felt by a lot of


people in seats that serve MPs wants to win and they will find themselves


in a need to put pressure on a Conservative Government if they win


to say, you can't do this, to my constituents. I don't think the


Conservative Party has been honest with itself about that and part of


that is the underlying problem is you had five years during which the


Conservative Party under David Cameron and George Osborne organised


the argument around the need to deal with the deficit and the debt and


this was the priority and then they have gone, Brexit is the issue,


Theresa May is Prime Minister and she has inherited that agenda but


not the will to make it the central issue and now that case is feeling


old and I don't think Theresa May has grappled with that change


properly. One change that the politicians have focussed on is


immigration and Theresa May has restated that pledge, you are saying


that her plans to reduce immigration will hit the economy and the public


finances. How you work that out? We know from the Government's own


forecast that when in November it revised down what it thought net


immigration would be it revised down tax receipts by about 6 billion. We


have seen that already in the books that was down to 180,000 a year net


immigration. If you take it down to another 80,000 that will hit about 6


billion in four years and that will grow over time. The more you hit


that target. Is that a price worth paying. From an electoral


perspective it is. Most polls suggest people would like to get it


controlled. How do you explain the low tax receipts, if they go down?


You suggest jobs will go as a result of immigrants not being here. Won't


they be replaced by people who are looking for a job? Are we suggesting


that Cafe Nero will be empty, because no one wants to work there.


Yes, there are more work age coming to Britain wanting to work and there


is not a fixed number of jobs and if we have people wh want to come here


and want to work and decide we don't want them here... Jobs get created


because they're here or they take jobs. But employment levels are


high. We have record employment. So there are not many people looking to


take jobs. I can't imagine our economy would collapse and the


hospitality area, which is an industry that attracts people from


Europe, they're not going to close down. This is the IFS just


predicting doom and gloom. Forecasts are marvellous, but people say it is


not scientific enough to be true. There are huge amounts of


uncertainty. We can plan on the basis of best forecasts. That


doesn't mean it will turn out as we predicted. Things could be better or


worse, there are a lot of risks in the proposals with the Conservative


the risk is that when you look at their NHS spending plans and


schools, they're not that generous and what we don't know is whether if


it is the case that leads to a deterioration of public services


would they ends up having to top the plans up or just live with public


services that were less good. Is this based on your idea that Brexit


will provide uncertainty rather than opportunity. It is based on the


government's own forecasts four s for the economy. It is the


Government's own estimates. It is true if we don't have a strong


economy neither Government could fulfil their plans. Yes the most


important line for the Conservatives manifesto is the one that says we


will leave the single market and they haven't explained how they do


that and sustain the economy and the rest of the forecasts go away. You


can't fit that in a manifesto. That is the line that will determine what


happens to this country and the rest is hypothetical on whether they can


do that in a way that protects the economy. Do you think there is more


of a focus on public services that played into Jeremy Corbyn. Yes it is


about mood music, that poll has closed, we have said it is only one,


he is giving you loads, the Tories suggesting they would be more Prue


dents. Thank you. Now, as part of the BBC's general


election coverage our very own Andrew is interviewing the main


party leaders in-depth. Tonight it's the turn


of Jeremy Corbyn. That's The Andrew Neil Interviews,


with Jeremy Corbyn, The one o'clock news is starting


over on BBC One now. I'll be back on Sunday on BBC One


at 11 with the Sunday Politics.


Download Subtitles