26/05/2017 Daily Politics

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.