31/05/2017 Daily Politics

Afternoon folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

With just a week of campaigning to go, Jeremy Corbyn goes

on the NHS, and Theresa May talks Brexit.

Will the parties prosper from pushing what they believe

Trident is described as Britain's "nuclear deterrent",

but would it deter if the person charged with ordering its deployment

They are supposed to be the loonies in this election -

we'll ask the Monster Raving Loony party if they're looking

And forget your education, social class or where you're from,

could how muscle-bound you are affect the way you vote?

All that in the next hour, and with us for the duration today,

Britain's constitutional historian - Peter Hennessey -

All that in the next hour, and with us for the duration today,

Britain's constitutional historian - Peter Hennessey -

First this morning, let's get the latest on the campaign

from a couple of bleary-eyed journalists, who are

no-doubt counting down the hours until polling day.

Sam Coates of the Times and Kate McCann of the Telegraph.

Kate, you ran a story about Labour's immigration policy, was just a

position paper or will it in from Labour policy if they win the

election? It is interesting this morning that Jeremy Corbyn was asked

about this immigration policy paper that was penned by his home affairs

policy adviser. He said it was a discussion paper, one of many, but

didn't deny that it could be part of Labour's policy on immigration

because of course in the manifesto they don't actually set out what it

would look like. We have seen no detail. I think it will form part of

their detail thinking, whether we will see it publicly before polling

day is another matter. It is an analysis of polling that has been

done. It shows that Mrs May could lose seats. Lots of others have been

a bit sniffy about it. What you could have done is let magic

together with a lot of demographic data to find out what is going on in

each constituency and have come up with this suggestion that their

central scenario, with a wide margin of error, suggests that Theresa May

will fall about 16 seats short of a majority. That is massively outside

the consensus of a study one opinion, it is not where other

pollsters think necessarily this is. I am quite struck by the level of

shouting on social media and elsewhere that simply don't like the

result it implies. There are a range of forecasts from different people,

we will find out next Thursday who is right. Do you believe it? Polling

isn't really a matter of faith, think it is a very credible attempt

to work out what is going on using different methodologies for everyone

else. Do you believe it, Kate? I would not want to comment on the

rules, I would use the traditional politician's answer. You are a

journalist! It doesn't necessarily feel right, if you go around the

country and talked a lot of people, as you have done online programme,

it doesn't necessarily feel in my gut that it is where this is

heading. We have the big debate in the image tonight. Sam, there was

talk that Mr Corbyn could turn up, or are they just playing with us,

just teasing us? He was definitely doing that at the press conference

this morning, trying to get to Theresa May to come along. If you

just watch that you would think that maybe, maybe Jeremy Corbyn might

surprise us all and cannot after saying he wouldn't. I can see a big

strategic downside in doing that, which is that it would elevate the

importance of that event. It is quite helpful for the Labour Party

that has benefited enormously from the 2-party screws, the fact that

all of the votes from the lesser parties apart from the SNP in

Scotland have been falling into the Labour Party on the right. So I

don't think it would be tactically that wise but if you listen to

Jeremy Corbyn this morning, we could be up for a surprise. Kate, it is a

week to go, the campaigning. Next Wednesday because there was no

campaigning on polling day itself, Thursday the 8th of June. Some up

for us, where are we in this campaign? Well, in some centres we

have had a renewed vigour in the campaign. Yesterday saw Theresa May

affectively try and relaunch the Conservative campaign. It doesn't

just said Theresa May any more, it says the rules of May and the

Conservatives. This is very much the second part, after the terrible

attack in Manchester, things stopped and slow down. Again we have seen

Jeremy Corbyn come out today and focus on public services, the NHS

and schools, and that is how the parties will spend the final week.

Theresa May talking about Brexit, why it is important she is Prime

Minister, Jeremy Corbyn talking about money, how he will put more

money into public services, trying to go back to the centre to appeal

to lots of traditional Labour voters, to shore up those votes and

when anyone left who is floating around and not yet decided. Of

course the Roi Du Mee will want to focus on why she should be Prime

Minister Anwar Jeremy Corbyn should not be, and I think we will see him

try and admit out and talk a lot more about policy in the final week.

Who will win? The Theresa May will be Prime Minister next Thursday.

With an increased majority? I don't know, we will have to wait and see

but I think what is definitely true is that she called the selection

perhaps hoping for a landslide, they once in a generation chance for a

realignment. If that doesn't materialise and the don't get 100

plus seats next Thursday, she will come back to Westminster quite

potentially with an increased majority but perhaps weaker than she

thought because she has shown not to be perfect, not to be impregnable.

Her and her team make mistakes. That will be one big takeaway from this

campaign that is likely to enjoy whatever the result, unless she does

terrifically well, far outpacing some other polls we have seen this

morning. That brings us to the end of the Sam and Kate show. I am sure

it will run and run, if not in Westminster than at the end of the

Blackpool pier. What do you make of this election

campaign, Peter Hennessey? There are no iron laws in British politics but

there is a nonferrous metal wall, that the issues flow where they

flow, you cannot expect a general election, even if the number-1

protagonist who has called it wants there to be a driving issue that

they want. As Ted Heath band. -- found out. It was wrong to think, if

people did, I certainly didn't, that it would be a single issue question,

and also it was overshadowed by the tragedy of last week. But general

elections by their very nature are promiscuous things, they flow where

they flow, and the human drama, and how can one put it? The human

geography is as much a factor in these things, or seems to be, in the

way the campaign goes and the tone and pitch of it as the cartography

of those opinion polls. I am very sceptical about the one in the

Times, by the way. I think the poll of polls is a great guide that is a

10% lead for the Tories. Yes. It is certainly an unusual campaign, we

can agree. So Labour has returned to what it

considers its stongest suits - Here's what Jeremy Corbyn had

to say a little earlier. The future of our National Health

Service and our schools The state that the Conservatives

have left our NHS and our children's schools in is anything

but strong and stable. Over the last seven years,

they've starved public services who rely on those resources,

because at every turn the Conservatives have chosen tax

giveaways for the few over public Patients are suffering ever longer

waits in overcrowded wards, those who need care have been

left without it. A, maternity units,

and whole hospital units We're joined from Newcastle now

by the Shadow Health Welcome to the programme. Why is

Labour promising to spend now only a little more on the NHS than the

Tories? Well, frankly, Andrew, the choice at this election for the

British people is stark, between further reinvestment by Labour once

again into our public services, especially schools and hospitals, or

more chaos and cuts under Calamity May. So I think there is a choice of

the British people. If it is so stark, why are you promising to

spend on the NHS only a little more than the Tories? We have promised

investment of 37 billion over the course of the next Parliament by

2022. And that would be a huge further investment in the NHS. Oh

gosh, my earpiece is coming out. Sorry about that, you are doing well

with it. I will hold it. It is over 2% extra investment of GDP. Compared

with where we will be in 2022 if the Conservatives win, which as you have

heard from Jeremy this morning, it is the waiting list would go up to

5.5 million people, and there would be an extra 1.5 million pensioners

in need of urgent social care. Except that when you look at the IFF

study of your two spending plans, the Conservative plan and the Labour

pan as outlined in your manifestos, by about 2021, 22, the difference in

the total spend is only a couple of billion. The ISS points out that

historically UK health spending has grown by an average of 4% per year

in real terms. 4%, which is twice, I think, the rate you are promising to

do it, as you would be the first to claim, there was a lot of ground to

catch up as well but you are not catching up. Historically the NHS

has always been safer in Labour hands than it ever has been in

Conservative hands. After seven years stewardship of the NHS, the

British people are beginning to see once again, in case they had

forgotten, or for those too young to remember, that the NHS is now in

calamity under May's chaotic leadership. At the risk of sounding

like a broken gramophone record, if we still have those these days, I

ask you again: if all that is true, why is your extra spending so

modest? I don't think it is modest. You are always telling us that we

are always trying to spend the way beyond our means. I think ?37

billion extra... But you have added all that up, that is the old trick

politicians do, you have added it up over five years. It is not 37

billion more by 21-22, you have added up each increase each year.

But the proof of the pudding will be what happens to the NHS. We have

promised we will reduce waiting lists by over a by 20 22. We will

put 8 billion into social care we will see vast improvements. Social

care imagery needs ?1 billion of investment and the Tories have not

promised that urgent investment straightaway. We will do that

immediately women take office. But if, and I understand why you would

want to make the NHS is such a priority, I think that is clear why

you would want to do that, why then is your single biggest spending

commitment the abolition of University tuition fees, which will

cost 11 billion a year? You are not planning per year to spend anything

like that on the NHS, why not? It is such a huge policy, that was such a

fundamental betrayal of a whole generation of young people, two of

whom are mine. I have a 21-year-old just doing her final maths exam on

Friday, and a 23-year-old who are sitting on for the grand's worth of

debt. We have got to stop that. It was a huge -- it was a huge betrayal

of a whole generation. We need to scrap the tuition fees. But why make

that more important, since it is essentially a subsidy to the

middle-class, tuition fees, the abolition of them, it will

overwhelmingly benefit middle-class and other middle-class families if

you abolish them. And yet you found a lot more money for that than you

found for schools or for the NHS, or even four in work benefits, which

above all would help the working poor? But there is no guarantee that

all of that money was going to get paid back. These were loans that

wouldn't get written off, that were paid back when people move into work

about ?21,000, but they would be only paid back if people and above

that. There were huge amounts guaranteed to be written off. All we

are saying is we will do that now, we will not pretend that this money

is all going to come back into the Exchequer. We are going to remake

the commitment to the young people of this country that they can have

higher education and the state will pay. Well, everyone pays, they pay

when they get their job and make it back to society. And we are going to

do loads for schools as well, Andrew, you know we are. ?4 billion

we are going to hugely invest in schools. Versus 11 billion for

tuition fees, I guess that is my point, you are devoting more to

that. However, I have asked you that. Let me move on. There was a

leaked document this morning about migration made by one of Mr Corbyn's

policy advisers, written by him, I should say, suggesting Labour would

allow the unskilled migrants to continue to work, to come here into

the UK after Brexit. Is that your understanding? No. I read about this

morning for the first time. It is not in our manifesto. I understand

it is some discussion paper but it hasn't been for discussion with the

Labour MPs signed not quite sure who it is out for discussion with.

So you would not continue to allow skilled migrants to come into the

country from the rest of the EU after Brexit? No, I've done public

consultation since the Brexit vote, as you know I am a Sunderland MP and

62% of my constituents voted to leave and I have held public

consultations and made a clear commitment to them that free

movement will end when we leave the EU, and that will be a fair

migration policy based on the needs of the economy, a points-based type

system, if you like, that's my commitment I've made, that's what

I'm aware that is in the manifesto and what I will be pushing for. That

is clear and from your point of view and what you think, so I thanked you

for that. I want to come onto the interview Mr Corbyn gave yesterday

to Women's Hour on Radio 4. The presenter was Emma Barnett and she

interviewed Mr Corbyn and she then got abused on Twitter. Partly

because she is Jewish. Let me just read some of these things that were

said. This is from somebody who calls him or herself Labour Insider.

Allegations have surfaced that @emmabarnett is a zionist.

And a user calling himself Steven McNamara, who later

deleted his Twitter account, said:

"He should have known especially when a Zionist shill

like you who hates him is conducting the interview".

And, "We know where Zionist Torygrapher writer Emma Barnett

is coming from, and she hates Corbyn."

I assume that's because she writes now and again for the Telegraph, we

know where she is coming from and she hates Corbyn. I guess the

question I would put is - in years gone by you would get this kind of

anti-Semitic abuse coming from the hard right in British politics. Why

do we now get it coming from the extremes of Labour? I've got

absolute zero tolerance for anti-Semitism or any racism from

where ever it comes in society. You will not be surprised I will say

that, my maiden name was Cohen, my maiden name was Cohen, although I

was not brought up Jewish I am half Jewish and I have absolutely no

tolerance for anyone who would say such things. It's totally abhorrent,

totally against any decent value in this country and I just haven't got

the time of day for people who enter into that sort of dialogue. It was a

bit embarrassing since it all came out on the day Labour launched its

race and faith manifesto, wasn't it? Yes, rather unfortunate. I think

those people that enter into those sort of comments are no friend of

Labour, they are not any friend of any civilised society to be frank.

Sharon Hodgson, thank you for joining us. The city looks beautiful

behind you. I'm not sure it is a photograph or the real pain also I

think it's a photograph. It is sunny today. So the picture is accurate.

Thank you. This kind of anti-Semitic abuse is surprising. Historically

you would think was from the far right and now seems in the far left

as well. It is appalling, and I'm sure only a

small number of people. It is venomous. I sometimes wonder if it

wasn't looking in the past before the electronic revolution they

couldn't express it and now they can in an instant. They don't resist the

temptation. It is dreadful, it is poisonous. Sharon and other

mainstream politicians including Mr Corbyn have disowned it.

Since Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader in 2015,

the party's policy on nuclear weapons has been thrown into doubt

in a way not seen since Labour abandoned unilateralism in 1989.

Jeremy Corbyn's opposition to Britain's atomic arsenal

He is a long-standing member of the Campaign

for Nuclear Disarmament, CND, and indeed served

as the organisation's Vice President until last year.

But the Labour Party's policy is quite clear -

the manifesto states "Labour supports the renewal

However, in a BBC interview in 2015, the Labour leader himself said that

"It is immoral to have or use nuclear weapons, I've made that

Asked whether he would use Trident, Jeremy Corbyn said "no".

And last July the Labour leader voted against his own party's policy

of renewing Trident in a key Parliamentary vote.

Only last month Jeremy Corbyn told The Andrew Marr Show that

"there would be no first use of it."

We're joined now by the Conservative,

Julian Lewis, who was chairman of the Defence Select Committee,

the Shadow Minister for Peace and Disarmament, Fabian Hamilton,

Peter Hennessey who is an expert on Britain's Nuclear

Fabian Hamilton, it would be fair to say the party's policy on renewing

Trident is not the policy that Mr Corbyn would want. Is that fair?

That's very fair and not the policy I would want but it is the policy

parliament agreed and it is the policy of the Labour Party so we

have to accept that. But given that above all it is the Prime Minister

who is in charge of Britain's nuclear deterrent, and quite often

it's use if it ever came to that would not be a Capanagh matter, the

buck really stops with the Prime Minister -- Cabinet matter. Is it a

credible deterrent if the man in charge said he would use it? I don't

think it is a credible deterrent in any case whatever the circumstances

but that's my personal view. The fact is we are rebuilding the

dreadnought class submarines, parliament agreed that, the Labour

Party policy is to support that and that is what is going ahead. I would

hope no Prime Minister, Labour, conservative, or anybody else, would

ever dream of using these appalling weapons because they destroy every

living creature on earth. What happened to the days where political

parties took such clear decisions on such matters of vital national

interest and individuals didn't agree with it so they resigned? What

happened to that? As you know, Andrew, this is a policy that has

been with us, and it has been controversial in the Labour Party,

since 1979, I would suggest. And probably before that too. We have

had many debates and discussions over it. If Jeremy Corbyn wasn't

willing to accept the party's policy, or if I wasn't willing to

accept it we would clearly have to resign but we are willing to accept

it. Even though you believe it's immoral? I believe they are

appalling, immoral weapons. Why would you support something you

believe to be immoral? Like Jeremy Corbyn I am a Democrat and I believe

if the majority agrees something we should abide by the majority.

Doesn't morality trumpet democracy? It doesn't stop us having our own

particular views -- Trump democracy? If you get elected again on June the

8th and it comes before Parliament under a Labour government would you

vote for it? The point is it would become dumber come before Parliament

again because the decision has been made. If it did would you vote for

it? I can't say unless I know what the motion is and what we are being

asked to vote on. This house reaffirms the intention to renew

Trident. You're setting this up as a way of trying to discredit me and

obviously my party. I'm just trying to find out if you were elected on a

manifesto in favour of it and if it came before the House of Commons if

you'd won would you vote for it? I disapprove of these weapons but the

fact is we've got them, we have voted to continue to have them and

that his party policy and untold party policy changes then we will

continue to support this in the House. I made a conscientious

objection, as I think 50 or 60 other MPs did at the time, that we

shouldn't have these dreadful weapons. The crucial issue is this,

that's why I'm doing the job we are doing, we should negotiate the

reduction internationally in the number of warheads every nuclear

mission has. That's the best way to get rid of these weapons. You are

the Shadow Minister for disarmament and he wanted negotiate down the

number of nuclear weapons. What other nuclear power in the world

agrees with you? I don't know until we start the negotiations but the

United Nations is currently discussing the ban treaty, the

treaty like the Treaty on landmines, chemical and biological weapons.

Let's stick to the nukes at the moment. Which other nuclear power is

cutting its nuclear arsenal or actually expanding and modernising

it? Who else believes in it? Who are you going to negotiate with's let me

answer the question. All of the powers that have already signed the

Non-Proliferation Treaty, the NPT, concluded and agreed in 1970, have

agreed that the nuclear powers as part of that treaty obligation to

reduce the number of warheads they have. Russia has reduced the number

of warheads, the US has reduced the number of warheads and the UK has

too. Both Russia and America are modernising their nuclear facilities

to make them more effective, they don't need as many. India has

responded as well, which is upgrading its nuclear weapons. North

Korea, I don't even have to tell you about that. Who else is going to

come to the table with you and get a serious reduction in nuclear weapons

as part of your disarmament? Who? That remains to be seen when the

treaty is concluded that 163 non-nuclear armed nations in the

world are negotiating this treaty at the United Nations. Can you name one

country that wants to be involved with you in nuclear disarmament that

is a nuclear power? Not at the moment, of course I can't, but we

changed the atmosphere and environment in the world to make

these weapons unacceptable, as we did with landmines, and with

chemical and biological weapons. We make them illegal and to use them is

a war crime but it never was before and thanks to the UN it is now. It

is a process that takes many years and we have to start that process or

the world is going to destroy itself. Julian Lewis, what is wrong

with a moral opposition to nuclear weapons? Welcome people take one of

two views about the best way to keep peace in the nuclear age. One is

that the build-up mutual trust and you get rid of mutual fear and

suspicion, and you do that by disarming yourself and showing your

potential enemies they have nothing to fear from you and that is the

peace through disarmament approach you have just heard and Jeremy has

debated this many times. The other view is diametrically opposed to

that and says the best way to keep the peace is to show any potential

aggressor that if they attack you with nuclear weapons there would be

not only unacceptable but also unavoidable retaliation. I

understand that but it wasn't what I asked you. What is wrong with a

moral opposition to nuclear weapons? Nothing but what one should have is

a moral opposition to nuclear war. Now, if you believe, and hence the

relevance, I'm afraid, of the answer, if you believe the best way

to prevent nuclear war is to disarm then it is morally right for you to

press, as you have just heard Fabian do, for nuclear disarmament. If like

me you believe the best way to prevent nuclear war is to show that

if someone attacks you with nuclear weapons they will get an

unacceptable and unavoidable nuclear response then the moral position to

take is to keep the nuclear weapons, and I'm delighted to say that in

poll after poll for 30 years or more two thirds of the British people

agree with my point of view and only a quarter agree with Fabian's point

of view. They may agree with you with that on a majority but it's not

an extremist position to be against nuclear weapons. It doesn't put you

beyond the pale, Michael Portillo, former Defence Secretary, said

Trident was a waste of money, particularly since we have a minute

army at the microscopic Navy. Crispin Blunt, the last chair of the

Foreign Affairs Committee, Tori Grandy, went through the lobbies

with Mr Corbyn last year against Trident. It is not just, if I can

put Mr Corbyn and the CND, who have opposition to the renewal of

Trident. If you had asked me to name any two conservative politicians who

take this point of view I would have said Michael Portillo and Crispin

Blunt. Crispin Blunt was the only person to take this point of view

and his view, which I respect, he is an old friend, he is an ex-chairman

and I am an ex-chairman, there is no defence committee have the movement,

of a that people who take the view, there are a few generals, I can name

them before you do if you like, you can come up with good quotes to say

we don't need nuclear weapons. I have seen what you've done to the

Army. Why do they say that? They say that because they are worried about

cuts to conventional forces. But if you believe that there should be

stronger conventional forces, that is no excuse for leaving your

country defenceless against nuclear blackmail, which no amount of

conventional weaponry can counter. You can have the strongest

conventional forces in the world. We would still be part of Nato. I will

come to that in a moment. You could be the strongest conventional power

in the world but if your adversary has even a few mass destruction

weapons there is nothing you can do to resist him. Yes, we would be part

of Nato and as part of Nato are nuclear weapons, they are assigned

to the general defence, but the problem about this is that by having

our own nuclear weapons we are able to ensure that if any aggressor work

to miscalculate and believe that perhaps, for example, because

nuclear weapons hadn't been used in the event of a conventional invasion

of the continent then the Americans might not use them on behalf of

Britain standing alone, by Britain having her own nuclear deterrent

nobody can never be any doubt that in nuclear attack in this country

would lead to unacceptable and unavoidable nuclear response, unless

Jeremy Corbyn is the Prime Minister, because he has announced in advance

that he would not retaliate. Nuclear weapons are in use every day. There

use derives from their deterrent effect in preventing nuclear war and

Jeremy undermines that position. Let me bring in Peter Hennessey. What

you make of the state of the debate on Trident? That could be a vote in

the next Parliament on the new warheads, because we need a new one.

We build the submarines, the Americans provide the missiles but

we provide the warheads. Designed in Berks. The existing warheads are

still viable as far as I know, one doesn't know about these things

unless one is a real insider, but they are getting old. It will take

17 years to produce the new warhead, according to the Cabinet Office's

estimate. And also the extending of the Vanguard submarines programme,

which Julian's committee has looked at. We will need to look at it

again, keeping those boats going until the late 20s, early 30s, is

way beyond their planned life and that will take an enormous amount of

effort. The Vanguard are the existing ones, but I thought were

building new ones to replace them. But you need to replace them one by

one sequentially, and they have been shoved up to the late 20s, early

30s, way beyond their anticipated life and keeping them going will be

remarkable. It is a great feat to have kept continuous at war

deterrence since 1969. I got married that day. You have managed to keep

continuously married while Trident for Polaris was continuously... Do

you call it operation relentless? Since the point of the deterrent is

that it is a deterrent and most people, almost everybody hopes we

would never be in a position where we would even have two consider it,

but in terms of firing it, what is the point of a deterrent if the man

who would be Prime Minister is already saying he wouldn't use it

anyway? Surely it loses all deterrent power if he says I will

not use it even if we have got it? Guidance on the point of the

deterrent myself but let me follow Julian's logic, and I have huge

respect for the work he did as chair of the select committee in the last

Parliament, and he and I are good friends. But the logic of what he

says is that every large nation in the world should have its own

independent nuclear deterrent if what he says is true but I don't buy

that argument. We have heard of the American say over and over again

about their right to bear arms but it is not guns that kill people, it

is people that kill people. That is the same logic, it is not about

nuclear weapons, it is about nuclear war. You can't have one without the

other. If you didn't have nuclear weapons you wouldn't have nuclear

war. Yes, because the Americans did. Had we got to the 1945 scenario, and

if the Japanese had been in a position to retaliate, would

Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been attacked, and the answer is no. We

will never know that of course, thank goodness. And we won't be able

to continue this because we have run out of time but I thank you Fabian

Hambuchen in Leeds and Julian Lewis here in London, thank you both.

Here on the Daily Politics, we see our role as very much helping

you through the scary forest that is the general

But as well as listening out for political prospects

going bump in the dark, and uncosted policies hiding up

trees, we're keeping a look out for the smaller parties lurking

Today, we're shining our torches at the Official Monster

Formed in 1982 by Screaming Lord Sutch and current leader,

Howling Laud Hope, they urge people to "Vote For Insanity".

They want to make all MPs wear the slogans of any

companies they work for, just like Formula One drivers

and snooker players, and introduce a 30-day cooling off

period for General Elections, so you can get your vote back

They have fiscal plans too, such as introducing a 99p

coin to save on change, and complicating the UK tax

system, so it will be too hard for corporations

They also promise musicians free transport on trams and buses,

as a thank you for bringing joy into people's lives.

And Loony party leader Howling Laud Hope is with us now.

Welcome back on the Daily Politics. Hello. You say you're 2017 ten, is

it's often the centre or not quite right? Al dente. Soft in the middle.

You must be proud in any way that it is not fully costed? To be quite

honest with you, the Monster Raving Loony Party has very a good idea of

what should happen in Brexit. If and when we come out, we then declare

ourselves the offshore tax haven, we are the biggest island Europe has

got. Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man become our satellite islands.

We tell the members of Europe to together and sling their hook in the

nearest fish pond. We would then in Europe without Europe ruling us.

Only the loony party would think about this. Does Zurich still have

gnomes? I think so. It was Harold Wilson who talk about that. That may

well be adopted, the Chancellor has talked about a different economic

model if we would not to get a deal on Brexit. I see that Ukip has

anticipated your -- adopted your immigration policy of one income of

one out. You are ahead of your time. Over the years we have got many

things through Parliament, as you well-known. Theresa May is talking

about a coalition of chaos, but that is right up your street. Of course

it is. Any of the other party sounding you out, seeing if you are

up for this? Nigel Farage has said we ought to form a coalition between

us, and I have always said yes, Nigel, Ukip, we sleep. Very well.

Other ideas pinched by parties, 204I drinking, Petzschner passports. --

24 out drinking, passports for pets. Jeremy Corbyn has been talking about

a bank holiday on St George's Day, we advocated that years ago. If you

want tomorrow's policies, vote for us today. So, if you want

yesterday's policies, but for us today, on the eighth, I mean. You

have never had a candidate retained their deposit. Never ever. But if

you did, you would have to consider your position. You couldn't survive

as leader. If anyone retains their deposit, they are getting too many

votes and not being loony enough. And you are the UK's longest serving

political leader too. 17 years, dead right, a good record. If you show

some success of being the electrical or coming up with policies that

other parties are pinching, I would suggest your position is in trouble.

We have always said the Monster Raving Loony Party is the

Parliamentary think tank. They pinch our ideas over time. Nothing we can

do about it. Who is doing the thinking in our part -- in your

party? Me, and all the other members. If you go to the website,

you can send in your own policies, and at our party conference in

Blackpool, we see which ones are good and which ones we will use.

Anybody's policies we can use. Have you dropped what was your solution

to global warming, the Tete the air conditioning units on the outside of

buildings. Now, that is central. We haven't got that at all, glad you

are numbered. What do you make of this constitutional proposal, that

there will be a 30 day cooling off period after you vote, so you can

decide to take your vote back? You reduce the voting age to five years

old, because that is how MPs behave in PMQs, and relocate Parliament to

Wormwood Scrubs to save on the commute. Quite hard to find a

consensus on that. It has been a great honour meeting you. I think

there should be a father of the polls, and I think it would be due,

25 elections in a row. It is glorious, you are part of the

continuity of the realm. You never thought you would hear that, from a

constitutional expert. Thank you for being with us. Thank you very much.

Now - with a round-up of the craziness elsewhere

in the election campaign - here's Emma.

You don't need to be the Monster Raving Loony Party to provide us

with a bit of madness on the campaign trail. We regularly see the

main parties are quite capable of doing that themselves too. I have a

question for you. Two appearances matter? For us into the world, we

just throw on any old thing in the morning but what about the

politicians? We are hearing that one party leader might be smartening up

his act. With that and more, here's the campaign round-up. As The one

Show became the Corbyn show last night, a revelation emerged about

the Labour leader's academic achievements. You went to a private

prep school and a grammar school. It can't be true but it -- they tell

you left with Cuiaba Es. I have the certificate at home. Matt McClure

and remember the withering comments Jeremy Corbyn once received on his

sense of style? Put on a proper suit, do up your tie and sing the

national anthem! Rumour has it that Jeremy Corbyn's spin doctors have

given him an election makeover, insisting he wears dark blue suits

to make him look more prime ministerial. Meanwhile, Theresa May

has said in a speech that if the user may became Prime Minister... He

will find himself alone and naked in the negotiating chamber of the

European Union. Leaving us with a mental image we can't raise.

Jonathan Bartley received his stats results. He scored 67 out of 70, but

instead of going to the top of the class, he called for the primary

school tests to be abolished. As if by magic, it is going to appear,

look at that. Meanwhile, breakfast means scrapping free school lunches.

Nick Clegg has attacked the Theresa May's decision to do away with free

school meals, unveiling a new poster for the Lib Dems in Kennington. I

have looked in every single camera now. We managed to get your better

side. Emma reporting. Now, in the run-up to election day,

we've been talking to each of the five largest parties

in Northern Ireland. Last week, we spoke to Alliance,

and today we're joined by Robin Swann, newly elected leader

of the Ulster Unionist Party. Mr Swann, your party campaigned for

the main but you are now fully signed up to Brexit. You think

either of the levers of the Remainers are impressed with your

position? We have taken the same position as the Prime Minister,

Theresa May at this moment in time. As a Democratic party we have

accepted the rule of the United Kingdom. Our MPs when elected will

be working for the best deal for the UK post Brexit and during the

negotiations, because we clearly believe that the best thing for the

UK will be beneficial for Northern Ireland. Is there any difference now

between you and the DUP on Brexit? In regards to Brexit, yes, the

difference between us, one of their elected people said at one stage

Brexit was beneficial at any cost, where our differential comes is that

we wanted to see a realistic agreement out of Brexit, especially

for Northern Ireland, because we are the only part of the United Kingdom

that has a land border with another EU member state. And we are fully

aware of the challenges and opportunities that will bring. And

during the referendum campaign, parties on the Remain side, like

your own party, though I don't think you yourself, but your own party

pointed out that if we leave the European Union it creates special

problems for Northern Ireland, doesn't it? It does but it also

create opportunities as well, and I think that is where we have to focus

on, now that we are leading the EU and Article 50 has been triggered.

The challenge specifically to Northern Ireland in regard to the

land borders, as I said earlier, there is a disingenuous argument

made here in Northern Ireland about a hard border between ourselves and

the Republic of Ireland but it has been made clear by the UK

Government, by the Irish government, by our own executive and by the

European Union that neither or none of the four organisations want to

see a hard border. So that is something we're working for at this

minute in time. And we are reflective that when the EU needs to

be creative when it comes to solutions and problems they have

been in the past and that is something we think will be possible

and something we work towards. It is true that nearly everybody in

London, Belfast and Dublin so they don't want to see a hard border, but

nobody is quite sure how to do that. Can you envisage a settlement in

which nothing changes on the border? That of course is something we would

like to see. We have the benefit of the border as we see it at this

minute in time, and also that benefits of the Common travel area,

which has been in place for a long time. As a member of the British

Irish Parliamentary Association, I sat with elected representatives

from across the UK and the Republic of Ireland, looking at how visas

could work, how transition is good work, and to ensure that we maintain

the open movement of people on this island and across the GB. One of the

things we are very clear from a party point of view is that we do

want to see a hard border positioned down the Irish sea with customs and

checkpoints and passport controls at Stranraer or in Heathrow.

There are some seats where the DUP looks favourite, or has a better

chance of winning where you are not going to run. There is a seat the

DUP will not run, I think to help your cause. But in those seats where

there is an Ulster Unionist candidate and a DUP candidate why

should they choose you over the DUP? There's fundamental differences

between the two parties and we have made that clear and we do make that

clear. The unionism that we demonstrate is actually a positive

unionism and a confident unionism and something I brought forward

within my leadership within the past six weeks. One of the newest leaders

in this campaign. Ourselves and the DUP stand as two different parties

on different manifestos and it is our approach to some of the

fundamentals we have seen specifically around policy in

regards to legacy, we are opposed to the creation of an historical

investigations unit, we see that as the creation of a secondary police

force in Northern Ireland. We are also supportive and try and bring

forward in the assembly a number of times a manufacturing strategy

specifically for Northern Ireland which the DUP stood down on. One of

the main fundamental differences is how our party approaches matters of

conscience issues. We need to leave it there but thank you for joining

us from Belfast, from the Ulster Unionist Party.

Now - Ellie's taking the Daily Politics Balls around

Today she's in Cambridge - which is playing host tonight

to the greatest debate the university city's ever seen.

And in exam season Ellie hasn't had a moment

to fritter away, right, Ellie?

Sorry, Andrew! I was just doing a little bit of research. Did you know

Cambridge has been sending a representative to Parliament ever

since the 13th century. More recently it has become a Labour Lib

Dem marginal, Labour defending a majority of just 599. But we're not

here to talk about that today, over the last few weeks we've been out

with the mood box, the coloured balls, tackling the big issues of

the campaign and today there is a big issue facing the nation. Not

just Cambridge. The question tonight is, the live debate which will

include Jeremy Corbyn, which makes it all the more exciting to watch.

But it's on at the same time as Britain's Got Talent. What will

people watch? We asked people in Cambridge who are not necessarily

representative of the whole nation. Here is what they said.

So, what would you rather watch, Britain's Got Talent or a programme

about the election? The election. Really? Why? It is funny to see

people are how about you, Madam? There is no talent in politics in

this country any more, it's gone. Britain's Got Talent or the Election

Debate, which would you rather watch? Election Debate I think. Is

it the final? The final is on June the 8th. Definitely Election Debate,

although I'd love to see Simon Cowell moderate it. I'm not a fan of

Britain's Got Talent but certainly not of politics so I'd go for

Britain's Got Talent. The Election Debate has the edge

over Britain's Got Talent. You do get to vote in Britain's Got Talent

as well. Do you? OK. You've never watched it have you? No. What will

you be watching? I will watch the Election Debate but on catch up

because I will be in the office but I will watch the Election Debate

afterwards. The Election Debate has God on its side? Definitely, yes.

Given there is so little political talent in this country Britain's Got

Talent is the better choice. Who is watching what? Election Debate for

me. Britain's Got Talent. Election Debate. Britain's Got Talent. This

family is split down the middle. The debate. Why? It is more exciting.

Going to get some popcorn in? I've got exams, but why not? Let's take a

break. Are you just saying what you think I want to hear? Probably! OK,

no, Election Debate, definitely. The lines have now closed and the votes

have been counted. And I can reveal that tonight's winner is...

The Election Debate programme. It's on at 7:20pm. Thank you very much,

Cambridge. -- 7:30pm. We look forward to seeing the

viewing figures. We need to check if the people of Cambridge were lying

to us, perish the thought! Joining us from the set

of the BBC Election Debate tonight is Mishal Hussein,

who is chairing the debate. I understand the big news is Jeremy

Corbyn is now going to be part of the debate. Yes, we just heard that

in the last few minutes so it means we do have another party leader

joining the line-up of seven tonight. This is actually the first

time we can show any wonder set here on The Daily Politics and we have

the podiums set up for all of the seven politicians. There has been a

lot of... Essentially most of tonight has been decided by the

drawing of lots, the position each of those politicians takes on the

stage also the order in which they make their opening statements and

the order in which they make their closing statements. It is of course

great news Jeremy Corbyn will be with us here tonight. That is

alongside the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, the deputy

leader of the SNP Angus Robertson, Paul Nuttall for Ukip, Caroline

Lucas for the Greens, Angus Robertson for the SNP, and Amber

Rudd for the Conservatives. It should be lively. It certainly will

be. What is the format? How will you proceed?

The format is that the composition of the audience here in Cambridge is

totally out of the BBC's Hans. They have been independently chosen by an

outside company, a polling company, and have been carefully chosen as

you would expect to reflect the country as a whole so they vote for

different parties. Some are undecided voters, altogether they

are coming in from different parts of the country, and also importantly

we have made a decision that they should be split along the lines of

last year's EU referendum campaign, so half of those sitting in the

audience tonight voted to leave and half voted to remain. Those who were

coming along were given the opportunity to submit their

questions and we have chosen a selection that represent a range of

issues that are being talked about in this election campaign. I'm

assuming I generally need to stress that the seven politicians don't get

to see them in advance but for the avoidance of doubt they do not get

to see them in advance. The composition of those questions has

just been in the hands of a small group of people. Mishal Hussein,

good luck tonight, live, BBC One, 7:30pm from Cambridge, I'm sure it

will be good fun and informative as well and Mr Corbyn will be their

too. What do you make of the decision by Mr Corbyn to turn up

which only leaves Theresa May of the leading parties not there. It is

good politics, people have been surprised how he has conducted his

campaign. This shows confidence on his part. That's the first

canvassing at white fryer. That was terrific. Nicola Sturgeon will not

be there, Angus Robertson will be there of the Parliamentary

delegation, not Nicola Sturgeon. Now, how do you like

your politicians? A new study from Brunel University

has shown that the more heavily built and attractive a man,

the less generous We'll be speaking to the author

of the report in a moment, but first here's a quick rundown

of some of today's manliest men in politics -

none of whom, of course, Well, we're joined now by the lead

author of the research, Welcome to the programme. Am I right

in saying that the report concludes in general there is a tendency the

better looking that person the less generous they will be. It is about

upper body size, muscularity and the correlation is the preference for

equality, bigger and more muscular men were less in favour of equality,

political and economic equality. Does it work in reverse? The less

muscular you are the more generous you are? More egalitarian, more in

favour of economic redistribution, more in favour of social equality

between groups in society. Why do you think that is? That is a good

question. We think it is partly that guys who find themselves in these

big muscular bodies calibrate their sociopolitical attitudes to match

their formidable itty and we form these environments where the outcome

of social competitions for status and resources were determined by

your fighting ability, physical strength, so we think it is partly

this throwback to our evolutionary heritage. But there also seems to be

more competitive individuals, the guys spent more time working out in

the gym and also have these anti-egalitarian political attitudes

as well. Democratic politicians, I know authoritarian ones like to

appear as strongmen, mainly men, is that true of Democratic leaders as

well? Is it important to be seen to be strong? There is a lot of studies

on preferences for leaders and when people exhibit most strongly

preferences for mostly masculine, aggressive type readers who appear

formidable and appear strong. It is always in the context of

international conflict. Those preferences are especially strong in

the context of war, for example. A point that we want to make in the

study is it is not necessarily a rational basis at all on which to

base your attitudes. Social inequality has really negative

outcomes for society. If it gets too extreme, lots of social dysfunction

is asserted with too much inequality. We are trying to

eliminate the hidden sources of people's attitudes in sums of their

preferences for equality and say they are not necessarily rational

and people don't know where they are coming from. It's not the best basis

for policy decisions to base it on your own physical form and ability.

Our politics isn't particularly chock-a-block with alpha males, is

it? In British politics? Not necessarily. There is more of a

history, maybe because of the class structure of British society,

politicians are supposed to be kind of genteel and not express a lot of

aggressiveness. It is different in America, people like Arnold

Schwarzenegger can be governor of California. In Britain it seems like

there is a preference for very strong women leaders, it more

acceptable, going back to Elizabeth I and Margaret Thatcher. Theresa May

says Elizabeth I is her hero. Yes. I think there is almost more of

tolerance with women leaders in society. What happened to the new

man? I wondered, it is fascinating, it reminds me of the great writer

and novelist Michael Defraine of the distinction between herbivores and

carnivores but can be both. Jeremy Corbyn has herbivorous ways and

carnivorous views. He throws your taxonomy of the Labour Party. It is

an interesting thesis. And on that we have to end it. Thank you for

joining us. That's all for today -

thanks to our guests. The One o'Clock News is starting

over on BBC One now. The BBC Election Debate tonight on

BBC One at 7:30pm and Jo will be here