31/05/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 31/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles