02/06/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Conservative candidate Craig Mackinlay is charged

following an investigation into 2015 election expenses.

The Prime Minister confirms that the Conservatives will aim

to bring net migration down to the tens of thousands by 2022.

But is it a firm promise, a mere ambition, or just a pipe dream?

Jeremy Corbyn says a Labour government would create a million

"good jobs" if his party wins power next week, and promises

"to rebuild communities that have been left behind".

We speak to a shadow business minister.

And Tim Farron promised a fightback for his party.

We travel to the former Lib Dem heartlands in the south west to find

I think this is the part where I make the joke about how

the party could fit all its MPs in that beach hut!

All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole

programme today Toby Young, associate editor of The Spectator,

and the journalist and film-maker, Paul Mason.

Some breaking news this morning:

The Conservative parliamentary candidate, Craig Mackinlay,

who stood against Nigel Farage in the last general election,

has been charged over allegations relating to his election expenses.

The Crown Prosecution Service has announced that Mr Mackinlay,

along with two other people, has been charged after

an investigation into 2015 general election campaign expenses.

The Conservative Party has released this response to the news...

We talk now to our Home Affairs correspondent Danny Shaw.

Give us the background to this? This all relates to campaign spending by

the Conservatives before the 2015 general election. There are very

strict limits on what each political party can spend locally. They have

to declare those spending is with Morrissey and declare what they

spent as part of the broader, national campaign. It is a very

complicated set of rules and regulations and there are strict

penalties if those rules are not adhered to. What happened in the

South Thanet seat, very contested seat in Kent, where Nigel Farage of

Ukip was up against Craig Mackinlay for the Conservatives, is a team of

Conservative Party workers was based at hotels in the area for some of

the campaign. They racked up thousands of pounds in expenses. The

question that Kent Police, investigating this, and the CPS

assessing the case had to determine is whether these expenses were

properly declared locally or whether they were national expenses, part of

the national campaign, should they have been included in the local

party spending returns? And if so, did it constitute an offence? The

CPS has decided today that three party members, Craig Mackinlay, with

standing again, Nathan Grey, his agent and a party worker should be

charged in connection with a number of allegations under the people act,

in relation to the decorations they made about the party spending in the

area. Right, let's hear the reaction from Nigel Farage, you mentioned,

when he heard the news about the charges. What does it mean? Well,

effectively what it means in our constituency is whilst his name will

stay on the ballot paper, I think the chances of people voting for him

are now very slim. I think that constituency will be a straight

fight now between Ukip on the Labour Party and I will be there tomorrow

afternoon, giving a speech at five o'clock to support our candidate.

Nigel Farage there. What happens now? What happens now is the three

people who have been charged will appear at Westminster Magistrates'

Court on the 4th of July. As we've heard from the Conservatives, they

are very confident that these allegations will turn out to be not

proven against them. In the meantime, Craig Mackinlay is

standing in the seat at the election next Thursday. There is nothing in

law that prevents him from standing. He is innocent until proven guilty.

None of the offences have been proven against him, so he will carry

on standing in that seat. What effect it has on the election in the

area or more broadly, I suppose, we will have to wait and see. Clearly

this isn't news perhaps that the Conservatives wanted at this

particular time, but there is nothing to stop Craig Mackinlay

standing in that seat next Thursday. Thank you.

The Conservatives have now promised that they will meet their target

of cutting net migration to less 100,00 people per year by the end

of the next Parliament if they win the election.

The Prime Minister said they will hit the immigration target

by 2022, and they've denied there is any confusion

after ministers appeared to have slighty different takes

Speaking to me yesterday, Conservative minister Brandon Lewis

pledged they would hit that target in five years.

You're saying tens of thousands in five years' time?

Over the course of the Parliament, yes.

Right, so by 2022, that's the guarantee.

EU and non-EU, down to tens of thousands?

We want to see migration levels come down to sustainable levels,

which we think is tens of thousands, over the course of the next

Parliament, yes, I've been very clear with it.

So the electorate will be able to hold you to account

However, the Brexit Secretary David Davis appeared on Question Time last

night and gave a slightly more cautious answer, saying the Tories

would aim to hit the target in five years but could not promise

...Slowly, but it's got to be managed carefully.

I just want to clarify this, I do think it's Tory party policy,

if you're re-elected as the government next Thursday,

to get it down to 100,000 within the five years of parliament?

No, to get it down, it's the aim, yes but we can't

So what are the positions of each of the main parties when it

The Conservative manifesto pledges to reduce immigration to sustainable

levels in the tens of thousands, and to place tighter

Labour reject setting a target figure but promise "reasonable

management" of migration, and they would remove students

Ukip pledge to reduce net migration to zero

While The Lib Dems say immigration is "essential

to our economy and a benefit to our society".

Meanwhile, the SNP want immigration powers devolved

to Scotland so they can have different rules to

To be young, what do you understand by the conservative commitment here,

to bring down net migration to tens of thousands, will it be hit by 2022

or an aspiration Marcelo and ambition rather than a promise and

whether it is achieved partly hinges on what Brexit till we get. I don't

think it's very sensible for Labour to try and turn this into a row

because Labour doesn't have any ambition to reduce immigration at

all. They would argue they say is unachievable. It was in 2010 first

of all, and a coalition government and the subsequent Tory government

have absolutely failed to meet it. It is achievable if we get a good

Brexit deal. By 2022? Gas. And it seems less likely if Jeremy Corbyn

is negotiating rather than Theresa May. Diane Abbott, due to be hon

Secretary of labour win next week, has said she thinks freedom of

movement is an inalienable human rights. It seems inconceivable

migration will fall if Labour are elected next week. What is the point

of setting a target that even ministers themselves can't agree

whether it is achievable by 2020 to one not? I don't think they want to

be tied to it because it hinges on what sort of deal be Prime Minister

and her team managed to negotiate. Is not just tied to the Brexit deal,

they made that commitment before we had an EU referendum and still

failed to meet it. They will be able to meet if they get a good Brexit

deal. With Theresa May negotiating, we have every chance. Labour doesn't

even have any aspirational aim to do anything about immigration. Is that

because, rightly or wrongly, they want to keep freedom of movement and

immigration high? You say they don't have an aspiration to do anything

about immigration, that's not true. They want to play set on a fair

basis, commensurate with the strategy they have with negotiating

a Brexit deal that allows access to the single market. When we were

covering the Brexit referendum, I was covering for Channel 4, again

and again people who wanted to come out of Europe would say to you, I'm

not bothered about the numbers, it's the principle is that I'm bothered

about, that everybody can come, that everybody can immediately have

access to the NHS and education system. I think the power of saying

let's elaborate the principle, the fair system. The numbers come

second. It's also true that the Tories recognise, I agree with David

Davis on this, a ?6 billion hit to the economy from achieving that

target is something you want to weigh up, you want to be careful

about the way you achieve it. And businesses know you can't achieve it

in the radical and sort of rhetorical way that the Tory right,

the anti-immigration xenophobes want. The problem is you say you

understood when you spoke to people about what they wanted in terms of

taking back control, and they weren't so bothered about the

numbers, do you think there are still many people in Britain who

would like to see the numbers come down, that's what they understood by

taking back control? Yes, I think there. Can they commit to doing

that? No, because there are also people, fair-minded people who may

have voted Conservative or Ukip in the last election, who understand if

you deal with the principle, that is more sensible than setting an

arbitrary target. It's possible we get half a million Brits coming back

from Spain that blows the target out of the water. Paul has clarified

what Labour's policy is on this. I don't speak for Labour. It sounds

like Labour's policy when it goes into the Brexit negotiations will be

to stay in the single market, even if that means... They want to end

freedom of movement. You can't stay in the single market and do that.

The single market is a priority for them. Will people believe them? Not

long before Jeremy Corbyn said Labour isn't wedded to freedom of

movement as a point of principle, but I don't want that to be

misinterpreted. Personally years in favour of it. Let's explain what it

is, it's a qualified right, not an inalienable right of workers,

whether Diane Abbott said it or not. Legally it is a qualified right. It

is one of the four pillars. If we come out of Europe it will end.

There will be a fair migration system. I hope that system does

involve fewer low paid agency workers coming in. I think the

Cabinet Office, they didn't put it in the manifesto, are discussing

trying to create a floor for salaries on which you can exercise

your freedom of movement. I would favour that. But both Labour and the

Conservatives have said that they do still need low skilled workers to

coming to Britain. Even Andrea Leadsom is reported to be seeking

assurance for farmers and agricultural services. Because it is

good for the economy. In the end it will be hard to keep that commitment

to reducing or completely cutting on skilled workers coming in from the

EU. I am not sure we will need more than tens of thousands of net

migrants to pick apples once we've left the EU. That is just one

sector. Just to be clear, if keeping freedom of movement is a condition

of staying in the single market, that's what you choose? It is a

condition and that is why Labour is seeking access to the single market

and not membership to it. Everyone can have access but tariff free is

what both parties say. Yesterday, a well known political

power couple took to social media to post a picture of their feet

as they lay in bed. So the question for today

is whose feet are they? Is it: A) Emanuel Macron

and Brigitte Trogneux? At the end of the show,

our very own political power couple, Paul and Toby, will hopefully give

us the correct answer. Who knows, maybe they'll

post a picture of their The Prime Minister has

told President Trump that she is disappointed

by his decision withdraw the US That was the agreement that saw

almost 200 countries, including the world's biggest

polluters, agree on a need to cut Yesterday Mr Trump explained his

decision, arguing the deal put At what point do they start

laughing at us as a country? At what point does

America get demeaned? At what point do they start

laughing at us as a country? We want fair treatment

for its citizens, and we want fair We don't want other leaders

and other countries laughing at u s any more, and they won't be,

they won't be. I was elected to represent the

citizens of Pittsburgh - not Paris. And we're joined now

by the Liberal Democrat, Ed Davey, who served as the Secretary of State

for Energy and Climate Change under Welcome to the Daily Politics.

Donald Trump was elected on a promise to do exactly this, using

the line at the end of that clip, so should we be surprised he's

fulfilling a campaign promise? Not surprised that more than

disappointed. He is letting down his own people. He is lying to them

saying that the climate change agreement is going to hurt American

industry. More than twice as many people work in the solar industry as

the coal industry and that's the growing industry and the growth jobs

for America, just like elsewhere, are in the clean tech, the green

energy sector, and so he has sold them a live and unfortunately is

delivering on it. It's bad economic and science. The Paris deal is a

voluntary deal, isn't it? The USA can stay committed to the agreement

if they choose to without actually fulfilling its pledge to limit

emissions? Could it remain as part of the Paris agreement and still

broker it? But look what he's doing from the environmental pictures

agency policy outwards? They are pulling back on the commitments

Barack Obama gave to take action in America and given the USA represents

15% of global greenhouse gases, the second largest polluter after China,

they have to act for the world are to succeed in tackling climate

change and he is going back on that and also on America's help to other

countries, developing countries, who needs support about Britain, Germany

and other countries are giving so he is really undermining the global

effort on climate change and we stood speak out loud and hard

against this American betrayal. Why is he undermining the rest of the

world in terms of what they do to reduce green gas emissions because

just because he is pulling out, it was a voluntary deal anyway, why

should it affect the rest of the world? Not in sense of our actions,

we should keep acting and do far more than the Conservative

Government was doing however because they represent so much of the

world's greenhouse gases, we need them to act. This is a global

problem, you can't act alone of. That the whole reason why we had an

agreement in the UN so everybody was playing their fair share and

America, as one of the largest polluters in the world and the

richest, should play its part. It has reduced its emissions in the

last few years. But not by nowhere near enough. 3%. That is tiny. What

has the EU done with its emissions? Our target in 2020 was 20% and I

think it's about 24%. We are aiming and I'm negotiated a deal that we

should reduced by at least 40% by 2030, far more ambitious than the

USA, so we have been playing a leadership role in the UK until the

Conservatives took power and rolled back on the action. China and India

are now acting, so America is isolating itself fulfil the only

other counties opted out our Syria, Nicaraguan and do we think the USA

is in this position when science is worrying about the planet. Should

Theresa May take a tougher line? Saying she's disappointed. It's a

secondary benefit. She has had a telephone conversation with him and

expressed her disappointment at his actions. Two but this context, the

Paris Accord is a very weak agreement that doesn't commit any of

its signatories to meeting any particular target. It was seen as a

ground-breaking agreement. True, and it's disappointing Donald Trump have

pulled out but last March he said America was not going to meet its

voluntary target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 26%. It would

be meaningful, not just a symbolic gesture, if it meant other countries

withdrawing to but it doesn't look like that's going to happen. There

could be a domino effect, we have to wait and see, but is Donald Trump

entitled to put America first and American jobs first even if it won't

actually have that effect? As long as the understands we are laughing

at him and his country and their appalling broken politics. He

doesn't care. He may not care but those coalminers will care because

they love the earth more than they love mining coal, but this will have

domestic repercussions because businesses are looking for a

long-term regulatory signal. The Tory Government of 2015 preferred

fracking. It's quite clear Theresa May, if she wins, will prefer

fracking and carbon emissions. They will be the soft underbelly of Paris

and they will predict if it gets tough under Brexit, they are the

next ones who will go. You will stay with us.

Now, it can be a harsh master, democracy, and no party has learned

that lesson more brutally in the last couple of years

Since their loss of dozens of seats in 2015, Tim Farron has promised

So we sent our Adam to the one-time party stronghold in the southwest

South Devon - great for holiday-makers,

Here in the land of beaches, ice creams model villages,

the Liberal Democrats used to be totally dominant, but at the last

election they lost all of the 15 seats they held in the south-west

So, how's that Lib Dem fightback going?

Their plan to win here is to oppose changes to NHS services and pensions

proposed by the Tories and to fight Brexit.

Down on the prom, it turns out they win some, they lose some.

We both work at Torbay Hospital, as part of the nursing team,

and the Conservative government are crippling us.

So you would quite like an alternative?

I would definitely like an alternative.

The Lib Dems' whole thing is about being anti-Brexit.

Well, I'm for Brexit, so that sums it up!

There's no way they could win you over?

Well, I used a vote for them, but I don't any more.

Because Theresa May is a far stronger candidate to get

the proper Brexit for us, I feel.

And there's one thing some people here really don't like the look of -

Lib Dem policy on a different kind of weed.

I used to quite like them, but now I don't approve with the cannabis

Drugs are bad, in whatever form, and it leads to other things,

and I just think a lot of older people, especially, are going to be

Do you think this is the Lib Dems' south-west battle bus?

I think this is the part where I make the joke about how

the party could fit all its MPs in that beach hut...

But, how do voters see the Lib Dem leader?

Let's ask at the beach, conveniently named after one of his rivals.

Tim Farron, the leader of the Lib Dems.

Well, he's the leader of the Lib Dems.

Oh, I thought he'd done something nasty or something.

He's an interesting fellow, and I quite like him.

I don't know if he's strong enough, but I just, I was very impressed

with the way he answered this chap on TV, who was extremely rude.

So, in this lush corner of England, there's good news and bad

for the Lib Dems on their long march back to where they were.

The hash tag doesn't seem to have been a roaring success in the

south-west and looking at the polls, I know they're not always right, but

it is because your anti-Brexit in south-west London, our stance is

going really well. Lets talk about the south-west because they can't

talk about individual places. A la opposition to the mid-dementia tax

is urging people to supporters now because they realise Theresa May's

social care policy will hit a lot of people who worked and saved hard.

You will look at our support for getting more support in the health

service by putting a penny on income tax, they see that as a credible

policy. Is that overshadowed to some extent, I'd take your point, that

the much bigger overarching message right from the start from the Lib

Dems, rightly or wrongly, was your firm stance against Brexit, wanting

to stay in the single market and wanting a second referendum which

the people said they don't support? The people in that film may not but

many others do like our policy. In the south-west. On Brexit? Some

people believe we should remain in the EU, it's good for jobs, the

economy, young people, but the campaign isn't just about Brexit.

Let's be clear. Tim Farron made his very, very firm stance on it. We are

very proud of being a pro-European party believe it's right to

co-operate with our neighbours and we don't like the hostility coming

from the Conservative Party to people who are friends across

Europe. If you just look of the numbers of people who voted remain,

and everyone can see why the Lib Dems, it's consistent with what you

said about Europe, and 48%, if we can garner support from that number

we will do well in the general election. The problem is a

proportion of those people have now accented Brexit and moved on and

therefore you have lost what would've been support. This is why

it's not just about Brexit because a lot of those people, who are remain

voters, are also worried about the unfair and uncaring dementia tax of

the Conservatives, about health cuts, cuts to their schools, and

they know across the south-west in places like North Devon North

Cornwall and Dorset, the Lib Dems are the challenges to the Tories so

if you want to vote for investment in health service, this outrageous

inheritance tax on low and modest income people, you have got to vote

Lib Dem. The Conservatives have committed to increase spending on

health service in real terms by 8 billion a year by 2022, so to claim

they are proposing to cut the NHS is a flat-out fake news. It's not

because the pressures on the health service, as you ought to know, with

the ageing population and the increased population, will overcome

that increase and that's why the Lib Dems say, on top of the base... The

Conservative pledge is to increase it per person in real terms. In the

health service? It's calculated per head of the British population. That

does not do the ageing population. You are failing to one slight

problem. That's why the Lib Dems believe we need extra money. That's

the social care policy would you have just crashed. That is to do

with the ageing population. It will hit loads of people in the

south-west of England who have properties you could be worth

?400,000, modest properties, and lower middle incomes, and you are

putting an inheritance tax meant for the wealthy on ordinary people,

quite a scandal, ordinary people who are unlucky enough to see their

relatives have care for ten years because they have dementia will now

pay tax higher than the wealthy, typical of the Tory party. The Lib

Dems want it both ways. Your leading... Ed, you have to go back

on the campaign trail, thank you for coming in. We will come back to the

social care policy and U-turn but let's go back to the core of the

discussion at the beginning. Do you think the Lib Dems made a mistake

focusing their campaign on Brexit? I think politics and political

leadership is about being a learning organisation. I don't think they

made a mistake to think of as a strong suit for them because there,

the urban celeriac, south-west London, it's not the only place, who

would like a second referendum and would like to stop Brexit. The

problem is, they have to interface with other ordinary people who have

moved on and I think what the Lib Dems haven't learned is this is not

playing in the election and my biggest disappointment with Tim

Farron as a leader is his inability to learn from the interactions with

the public, that they have moved on from Brexit, they do care

passionately about what Ed Davey is talk about, the dementia tax, and

the Lib Dems are doing us a disservice by failing to challenge

the Tories. Actually, on the policy of social care you were debating

with Ed Davey, that is given the Lib Dems and other opposition parties an

opportunity because of the about-face Theresa May was forced to

make. And opportunity they don't appear to have exploited. Let's not

forget that there will be a cap on the contribution. There is now but

we don't know what it is. People will be able to keep ?100,000 of

their home value. To be confirmed, much of their manifesto is TBC. To

be confirmed. Yes, it will be a garden tax. It is fake news, a life.

Fake news. Hang on. Call out the fake news now. So it's OK to

describe something as a dementia tax? Gentlemen, we are going to move

onto a different subject, jobs. Now, the Labour party have said

that their plan for Britain's economy will create a million jobs

and drive growth. The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

was in York this morning giving a speech on Labour's industrial

strategy, he said he would work to make Britian's energy systems 60%

renewable by 2030 and had this to say about the state

of the UK's jobs market. I've seen an economy

that is grossly imbalanced. Talk to people and you'll understand

the consequences of this problem. London overheats, and the cost

of living there rises, while communities in too much

of the rest of the country have seen their local

economies hollowed out, industries decline

and stable jobs gone. Right across our country too many

people are trapped in precarious, low-paid work, while a few

at the top get much richer. And joining me now is

Labour's Shadow Industrial Strategy She is in York. One of your flagship

policies is raising corporation tax by 7% to 26% to fund public

services. This means hundreds of thousands of businesses will have

less money to spend on creating jobs. So in fact, your plan will

hurt jobs. Our plan, the industrial strategy

we've announced today, is about creating 1 million good jobs across

the UK and using our industrial strategy to do that. On the point of

the corporation tax, what we're doing is we are restoring

corporation tax still to less than the levels it was when Labour left

and to lessen the levels of almost every other country. In the United

States, corporation taxes at 39%, for example. What we are saying

here, and this is the perfect riposte to Donald Trump, who argues

that withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement is about

protecting jobs, we are showing that by decarbonising our energy

production we can create jobs. And not just any jobs, good jobs, not

minimum wage jobs, jobs that pay a proper wage on jobs people can be

proud of. That is what this country needs. Except they will have less

money, of course, businesses, if you're going to tax them heavily

they will have less money. Whatever you do with that money is up to the

Labour Party. Hang on... You mustn't look at this as a zero sum game. A

growing economy, so they won't have, they won't have less money. But I am

looking at the policy in isolation because this is what you're talking

about, it's an important policy anew flagged it up because you want to

fund public services with it. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says

plan will raise less money in the medium to long term, because

companies will choose not to invest in the UK. This isn't me, this is

the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who say that your plans, your fiscal

plans are overly optimistic and will put companies off investing in the

UK, which means you won't be able to create those jobs. Our plans are

fully costed, and in costing them we've taken allowance for

behavioural change as a consequence of the changes to the taxes that we

will be making specifically for corporation tax. But much of our

plan we are announcing today is actually funded by our national

transformation fund and national investment bank. The creation of a

national investment bank will have regional offices, including a bank

of the North, which will encourage investment in small and medium

businesses across our countries, -- country, which will address... We

have the most regionally imbalanced economy among the major economies

and we need to get that right, because it's holding back the

potential of cities like York, of our nations and regions. Our people,

our employers are being held back by a lack of investment, a lack of

investment in skills. We have one of the worst productivity rates in the

developed world. Isn't that to do with levels of high employment?

Listening to you and Jeremy Corbyn, you would think we are in the midst

of a massive unemployment crisis. Actually implement is at a record

high and we have the lowest youth unemployment in Europe. So are you

trying to fix something that isn't broken? You talk to people in

Newcastle, across the country, they haven't had a pay rise... That is

different. We will come onto wages in a minute. We're talking about

creating jobs and we have very high employment levels. You accept that?

6 million people are in work and they are not in a job that pays them

a living wage. They cannot live from their work. We are recreating,

rebuilding the working poor. This strategy is about ensuring that

those who are in work, that work pays and they can have work they are

proud of. Let's talk about wages. That is a problem, they have

stagnated for years since the financial crash. Hasn't she got a

point that the jobs being created, the jobs miracle Tories are talking

about, yes people are white, but it's not enough to help them live in

a way that you wore I would like to. It is true wages have stagnated

since the financial crash, but that was a global financial crash and

that has happened all over the developed world, not just in the UK.

You are quite right to point out that under the last Labour

government in 2010, after 13 years of Labour being in office,

unemployment at 8%, it's now about 4.5%. Unemployment among young

people was a million when Labour left office now less than half a

million. Labour's industrial strategy is

nonsense. There are economic policy, as before, is tax and spend. Why is

it nonsense? They said they wanted to nationalise the gas, electricity

and water industries. That will cost roughly 200 billion. Where will they

find the money? Labour's industrial strategy is to plant money trees on

an industrial scale. It's about creating jobs, investing around the

country, not just London and the south-east, that's not nonsense. The

northern powerhouse was the Conservative policy. We have just

seen mayors elected in Birmingham and Manchester, that's hardly a

Labour Party policy. No one has any confidence in the Labour Party's

ability to grow the economy. The deficit was over 150 billion and now

it is half of that. In terms of trust in the economy, that is a

problem for Labour. For all policies people may regard as sensible and

may lead to growth in the economy, they still don't trust Labour to do

it. I have to say, that's not what I found on the doorstep. People have

sensible questions about where the money comes from to pay for the

fiscal muck... What about the ISS saying... They are a very respected

spreadsheet organisation for adding up whether or not people's

commitments and tax-raising seriously add up but they have a

wrong-un model of the macro economic star Nymex of this country. With

respect to them, it would be equally possible to get expert opinion to

back up what Labour says. On this question of a national industrial

strategy, I think it is important... People like me have been saying for

years it's not easy to do national industrial strategy but desperately

desired that all parties get their heads around how we do it. Because

after Brexit, Brexit will happen, the world will be reshaped. The

market doesn't solve it. The government needs to shape the market

and encourage investment in high quality employment and high-value

business. If we don't, it will go to Ireland, it will go to an

independent Scotland, if that takes place. In terms of corporation tax,

we have a lower corporation tax than the rest of the G7. Look what

attracts. Investment. There is very little high-value investment coming

to the United Kingdom because they prefer where places where people

feel happy in their skins and we haven't given international

business... Let me go finally back to Chi Onwurah. An zero hours

contracts. McDonald's carried out a survey of its employees, it wanted

to offer all of them the chance to go on to fixed term contract and a

significant number of them said, we would like to stay on flexible

contracts. What do you say to that? Our manifesto says quite clearly our

industrial strategy is we will abolish zero hours contracts but

retain the ability for flexible employment, which is at the control

of the employee. I know from talking, I know you cannot plan for

their parental duties, for looking for other jobs it is absolutely

destroying many lives, zero hours contracts badly implemented. Also

making people invest in employees, to have a proper contract, to have

proper investment, to have a proper education service which ensures

working people also can have access to education and skills, improve

productivity, create jobs and have an ecomony that works for many and

not this view. The ONS carried out a survey and discovered two thirds of

the people on zero hours contracts like being on zero hours contracts.

They like flexibility. That includes a 60 or so people employed by Labour

Party MPs on zero hours contracts. Chi Onwurah, thank you.

Now, in the run-up to election day we've been talking to each

of the five largest parties in Northern Ireland.

Yesterday we spoke to the SDLP and today we're joined

Welcome to the Daily Politics. You traditionally don't take your seats

in Westminster. Remind viewers of why. We refuse to take an oath of

allegiance to any monarch in those circumstances. We also believe, and

the evidence shows us, a collection of nationalist Irish MPs... We want

to see power devolved to Ireland, devolved institutions working on

Ireland and reunification of the island of Ireland. At your manifesto

launch and said the Conservatives want to force Northern Ireland into

a disastrous Brexit. Would you consider taking your seats in order

to get Jeremy Corbyn over the line in the event of a hung parliament?

That scenario will not arise. Regardless of the outcome of the

election. We will see this day next week what the outcome is. We will

not be taking an oath. Even if it allows the Conservatives to enforce

what you called a disastrous Brexit? I think the scenario that will

develop, and this will be well discussed, if there is a hung

parliament in that sense, those discussions will take place between

the Labour and Scottish Nationalist party, Labour and other individual

political parties. Jeremy Corbyn is on record as saying he would try to

form a minority government. Your leader said this election is very

much about taking an anti-Brexit stance. To accept if the

Conservatives win, and if they win with a reasonable majority, they do

have a mandate for the Brexit they are planning? Let me be clear about

this. If the people of England and Wales wish to leave the European

Union, I wish them well. We want to see a stable economy on the island

of Britain because we trade with it and rely on that trade for Roma

economic well-being, on the entire island of Ireland. People in north

of Ireland voted to stay in the EU. We are the only part of what is

known as the UK that will have a border with the European state. If

an economic border is placed on Northern Ireland as a result of

Brexit it will damage our economy, the economy in Ireland... I don't

think it does anyone any favours. Our peace process was the

recognition of the Democratic voices on Ireland. The first major test of

that has been Brexit. We voted to remain, we expect that vote to be

respected by which ever government comes into power in Westminster next

week. As you outlined, your commitment to remaining part of the

EU, your manifesto also calls for Irish unity and a referendum on that

in the next five years. Is that really the way to get Unionists on

site, with whom you obviously share views on Brexit, public spending and

so on? As I said at the start of the interview, we are a Republican party

and we believe in the unification of the island... If you're talking

about this election and you are worried about Brexit, shouldn't you

be trying to get people to vote for you, who will further those more

immediate concerns? I think in terms of the vote that lies ahead, people

already know Sinn Fein's position, it's no secret to them.

Reunification is an answer to Brexit. We have also put forward a

very detailed document in relation to designated plans for the

relationship with the EU. We have put proposals and alternatives

forward to the Irish government and the British government and to other

European states. As the Brexit negotiations outlined or roll on,

there will be a form of Brexit across these islands. We believe we

can shape that Brexit on the island of Ireland to sort the people of

Ireland. Nobody wants a border on that happen, are you addressing a

problem everybody agrees about? With respect, Theresa May has come out

with many warm words about the island of Ireland in terms of no

hard border, frictionless border... Issue being untruthful? I follow her

policies, policies are to the single market and the customs union. If

she's fill those policies, there has to be a border on the island of

Ireland because the border will be with another European state and not

only with the European state but with the entire European Union. That

that will be part of the negotiations and she has made it

very clear she doesn't want the border. We also accept her intended

and stated policies mean no border on the island of Ireland is a

fantasy, if Shiva fills her objective of leaving the customs

union and single European market, Theresa May can have all the warm

words she wants but her policies direct us towards a border on the

island of Ireland. Whether it is hard or soft or frictionless it will

be an economic border. Currently billions of pounds of trade crossed

that border on a monthly basis. Currently carried free. If we leave

the customs union and the single European market there will be

tariffs on those goods. How do feel the turmoil in politics in Northern

Ireland will affect the result? The institutions collapsed over

allegations of corruption at the highest levels of government, but

behind that was also the backdrop of Brexit. Brexit has caused major

difficulties in our political institutions here, denying

democratic rights to many people has caused problems for our political

institutions but we are committed to re-entering negotiations to restore

those institutions. We believe they are important and people want those

institutions. They want to be governed by local politicians. That

is our objective after the elections, to deal with the

political difficulties in and around our institutions but we still have

to deal with Brexit. Thank you. In a typical election campaign,

the air is thick with numbers. Politicians of all parties use them

as ammunition to help win our votes whether they're claiming

a particular policy has helped millions of families or promising

billions of pounds in spending. But increasingly, claims like these

are coming in for more scrutiny. Now, to help us tell

the difference between cold, hard facts and more spurious

statistics, we can speak to David Spiegelhalter,

President of the Royal Statistical He's on College Green

with our reporter Emma Vardy. Of course the old cliche says there

are lies, dam lies and statistics, so that's why we need people like

this and the professor has taken a look at some of the claims made

during the campaign and where you say we need to look little more

closely. Thanks very much. Let's look at net migration, an important

topic for the Conservatives and that is running at 250,000 last year, the

latest figures, the number of people coming in mine as a number of people

going out but we need to take that number apart. It's quite

compensated. Among British, there are 60,000 leaving the country than

coming in to live and among EU migrants, 133,000 extra coming in

but non-EU, the biggest contribution, 175,000. We add those

numbers up together. If we aim, as the Tories say, to get below 100,000

in a certain amount of time which is not click on which of these will

change? We assume all of these will go down. But, in order to get to

under 100,000, it will need more than just this to change, either

more Brits will have to leave, or or restriction on non-EU migrants, and

these tend to be skilled people and students who can commit to the

economy. This is not the main contribution. Let's take a look at

one of the claims made by Labour. The party says inequality is

growing, the gap between the rich and poor is widening. What do

numbers tell us? How do you measure inequality? And a large population

of people? The LFC use a complicated formula shown inequality rising

through the 1980s and then being stable and then reducing over the

last few years, people getting less unequal. It seems to go against it.

If we use a slightly different survey, the index wobbles stable,

and if we use a different measure, the ratio of what the richest 10% in

compared to what the poorest 10% own, that has been getting worse. It

depends which statistic we use. We have seen a lot more fact checking

features on websites and news programmes so has that made parties

any more careful or honest about how they present figures? I think it's a

fantastic development and is made people more cautious. We have the

educational data lab, an organisation which took about the

claims about how much it would cost to provide free school breakfasts

for everyone so this is making people more cautious, particular as

we have seen for the first time the numbers being challenged live on

here. For your average voter who may not have a Ph.D. In statistics, what

is the best way to tell fact from fiction? It's very difficult and I

find it difficult myself but we need to be suspicious when people try to

reduce a subtle complex issue like migration and inequality to a single

number. That can be very misleading indeed. Beware of those sweeping

claims? And targeting a single statistic. Thank you for joining us.

Let's look at what's been happening elsewhere on the campaign with our

daily round-up. You know that game we must speak without repetition,

hesitation or deviation, politicians you might be surprised to find, are

particular this, and here's our first contestant and their time

starts now. I'm very clear that this

is a crucial election... This Theresa May appearance

in the south-west prompted the Plymouth Herald newspaper

to claim it reminded them of a version of

Radio 4's Just A Minute. A stronger, more

prosperous future... "She had given me

absolutely nothing"... Wrote the report

after the interview. Talking to people with that

very clear message... Turns out, getting inked wasn't

to be for this Tory candidate On seeing what was on the window

of this tattoo parlour Jacob Rees-Mogg remarked,

"We shall have to take our Last night's Tim Farron

versus Andrew Neil match I want you to address

this simple point... Well, I'm trying to get

you to answer the question, That's exactly what I am

trying to do, Andrew. Presenters can just never get a word

in edgeways these days. And as Nigel Farage

took to the streets One voter offered a few

thoughts on foreign aid. If I was to do that in my house,

give next-door neighbour Lily some Donald Trump's withdrawal

from the Paris climate agreement prompted this

from Jeremy Corbyn this morning. Donald Trump's decision to pull

the United States out of the Paris climate change deal

is reckless and dangerous. And why have a general election

when this could all be sorted out With less than a week to go,

the communications union reckons it's the last chance saloon

for the likes of bumbling Boris Johnson and Amber

"the replacement" Rudd. Less than a week to go and we have a

question Time debate this evening with Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn.

What advice would you have for Jeremy Corbyn? Carry on looking

prime ministerial, being honest with people, people like his honesty but

I think he has do now go beyond where it looks like labour is now in

the high 30s. He has to begin to appeal to appeal to people who voted

Conservative in the last two elections. Is the problem he is

appealing to its core vote and will only pilot votes in already fairly

secure Labour areas? 50% Labour in London at the moment, that the

danger, but I also think it's down to locality, parts of the country.

East of the A1, it is the Brexit thing, the Ukip thing is still

there, but I think, in middle England constituencies, which Labour

are trying to win, we can't mention individual names but places in the

East Midlands, on the doorstep, what you are hearing is the manifesto

pledges, above all, it's like an old vinyl record you rediscover for the

can nationalise things, we can spend money on the NHS. Baby boomers,

people like that. It raises the question which Amber Rudd brought

home, where is the magic money tree? It's in the Bahamas, the rich no

where the money is, it's in offshore tax havens. This campaign is not

gone to plan, let's put it that way, for the Tories, has it? But

narrowing of the gap in the polls between Labour and the Conservatives

actually helps the Conservatives for two reasons, first of all, it makes

the risk of Jeremy Corbyn actually being in Downing Street next Friday

real, it brings at home to people and that will bring out the Tory

vote. Secondly, if Jeremy Corbyn does better than Ed Miliband did,

not in terms of seats but in popular vote, the benchmark he and his team

have set, around 30%, still not great but better than Ed Miliband,

if they do that, the chances are Jeremy Corbyn will hang on or be

replaced by someone very similar with the same sort of policies.

That's good for the Tories because so long as Labour are led by Jeremy

Corbyn or someone like him, the Labour Party is unelectable so if

that is what the outcome is this general election, a large majority

for Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn is replaced by a clone, that is great.

One problem has been making the whole campaign about leadership and

being strong and stable and it has to some extent been the undoing of

Theresa May and has played into Jeremy Corbyn? Let's see what

happens next Thursday before entering on a postmortem but I think

when people think who do we want negotiating on behalf of Britain in

those difficult Brexit negotiations against 27 EU leaders, they would

choose Theresa May? I think somebody who turns up. I think we want

someone with moral courage because a strong and stable leader would have

signed a joint declaration between the Italian Prime Minister and

Angela Merkel last night, saying we reject what Donald Trump is done. I

think people want a person with a moral centre to run this country and

someone who has the courage to debate and answer journalists

questions full from opposition politicians always have the

advantage in not because they have nothing to lose. Theresa May has

missed out on woman's hour, local radio interviews, and is there

something wrong with that? Is she unwell? What is wrong with her? Are

you really putting the question? She is being presidential but if you

want to be presidential, we need answers as to why she is not turning

up to these things? You are raising the Prime Minister's health as a

question? What is wrong with Theresa May that you can't go live? She is

doing a debate tonight with Jeremy Corbyn. They did it with Hillary

Clinton so why not Theresa May? You have a blind spot on this. One of

the reasons many traditional Labour voters can't bring themselves to

vote for a Jeremy Corbyn Labour Party is pricey because they think

he lacks the moral compass. Some of a moral compass would not have

invited representatives of the IRA to party at the House of Commons

days after they tried to kill Prime Minister this country, and describe

a terrorist organisation like how Mass as his friends. It is the lack

of a moral compass, someone would not have put Rees on the grave of

one of the terrorists who killed the Israeli athletes at the Montreal

Olympic Games. Does this go to the character of Jeremy Corbyn? For the

millions of people who voted Labour all their lives, people who believe

we are part of a movement at the very core and fabric of this

democracy we live in, we feel utterly insulted by what you have

just said. Why because it's not true? Is it true? Someone who

supports terror. What you are trying to do here is Samir an entire half

the UK as terrorists, culpable for Manchester -- smear. We are talking

about the man who wants to be Prime Minister. Are the claim is true?

None of it is to. He didn't meet members of the IRA, and Sinn Fein?

Sinn Fein is a party. Margaret Thatcher negotiated with them. Not

days after they tried to kill her. Margaret Thatcher negotiated with

the IRA. Can I'd just say one final thing, in terms of the manifesto

very briefly with Labour, is the problem Jeremy Corbyn does not

believe what is in the manifesto and he has agreed to go with a

collective view rather than his personal view? Jeremy Corbyn will

lead a Government that will press the button if necessary and will do

the things we are committed to. We are going to die but quickly to the

quiz. Whose feet are in that poster? Sam Cam and David. How do you know?

Well done, you are right. It is the Camerons who post with their feet.

Particularly to you two for being our bests guests of the day.

Andrew will be on BBC One on Sunday with Sunday Politics, where he'll be

talking to former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.

And I'll be here again on Monday for more Daily Politics -