02/06/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/06/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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 -


Download Subtitles