05/06/2017 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome to the Daily Politics and Westminster,

where campaigning ahead of the general election goes

on in the wake of Saturday's terror attack in London.

Police are said to know the identity of the three attackers who killed

seven people and injured 48 near London Bridge,

the third attack of its kind in the UK in just 10 weeks.

As the investigation continues, Prime Minister Theresa May

says "enough is enough", promising to end the UK's

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says she ignored warnings about the risks

We'll be talking about the political impact of the attack.

The election is now just days away, and we've been in Northern Ireland

looking at the possible impact of Brexit at the ballot box.

And should you believe what you read in the opinion polls?

We'll try and explain why the pollsters can't agree on much

It isn't an exact science, is it, because what people say

about what they're going to do isn't necessarily what

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

of the programme today, it's the former Conservative Justice

Minister Dominic Raab, and the Shadow Health Secretary

So let's begin by talking about Saturday's attack

Police investigating the latest terrorist incident to affect the UK

say they know the identity of the three attackers who murdered

seven and injured 48, and say they will release the names

They were shot and killed by police after driving into pedestrians

on the bridge in Central London and stabbing people in nearby

Borough Market, and the names of some of the victims have also

Let's get the latest on this ongoing investigation from our home

affairs correspondent, Daniel Sandford.

Tell us the latest developments. As you say, police are almost

certain of the identities of the men who drove across the bridge and

started stabbing people in the pubs and restaurants nearby in Borough

Market. We in the media are also aware of the identity of at least

one of those but we are being asked by the police not to broadcast them

for operational reasons at the moment. I think we may get the names

officially announced as early as this afternoon but that does depend

on what happens in terms of arrests and raids over the next few hours.

One of the men is definitely a Pakistani man living in the Barking

area and another man we are hearing from Irish sources likely had an

Irish identity card and what of Moroccan origin but we will hear

more about that in the afternoon. 11 people are currently in custody, 12

having been arrested, one of the men was released soon afterwards. Most

of those people were arrested at one address in Barking, another one

close by. We had two fresh raids overnight, one in the borough of

Barking and one in the borough of Newham, we had camera crews at both

of those, lots of police activity at those but still this is early days,

the police pretty much know who did it, the question is who helped them.

We now know five plots have been disrupted between the Manchester

attack two weeks ago and that on Saturday night. As the volume always

been that high? No, I don't think it has. It has

been exceptionally high since 2014, we are talking about 18 plots I

think since 2014 have been disrupted but there seems to have been an

acceleration since the Westminster attack on March the 22nd this year.

I think a failing in police circles and security service circles is

there is a degree of copycat or inspiration as a result of that,

they noticed how much attention and shock was caused by bad attack on

March the 22nd and that have encouraged people to accelerate

their own plans, so you are essentially have since March the

22nd two successful attacks on the UK and five what the police believe

were unsuccessful attacks on the UK, and I think that is the highest

level we have really ever seen, it wasn't the rate at which we saw it

in the IRA era and even in the Al-Qaeda area we were not getting

them coming into the UK at that kind of rate.

Daniel, thank you. This attack followed hard

on the heels of the bombing at a pop concert in Manchester less

than two weeks ago. Last night, the singer Ariana Grande

returned to the city for a benefit concert to remember the victims

of that suicide bomb. # But don't look back

in anger, I heard you say. I love you guys so much,

and I think that the kind of love and unity that you're displaying

is the medicine that the world So I want to thank you

for being just that. And I want to thank you for coming

tonight, I love you so much. Ariana Grande there at the concert.

You're bored after yet another terror attack, this time on the

streets of London? -- your thoughts. Horrific attack, good to see

Manchester getting back on its feet and responding with courage and

positivity. In terms of London, I know that area quite well, I worked

there my early career as a lawyer, I used to socialise there, it is

horrific. Our thoughts are with the victims and families as well, and a

huge credit to the public and security services, particularly the

police, eight minutes from the first call to arriving and decisively

dealing with, killings of three terrorists involved. We need to hold

our nerve, there will be lots of talk about what we should do next, I

know we will come onto that but I think as politicians as well we need

to get on with our democracy and protect our democracy, and go to the

polls on Thursday. We don't let the fanatics get the victory of

disrupting our democracy, that would be the gift they want. There has

been a great show of resilience, as you said, and if there was an

attempt to disrupt our way of life, people going out and enjoying

themselves at a concert or on the streets of London, that tribute

concert last night to the victims showed that people are not afraid?

No, it is a strong message from a younger crowd, young audience, young

artist, but people right across the generations will be proud that

Britain is getting back up off its knees and continuing to do the

things not just that we need to do but want to do and as a politician I

am keen, I have a hustings this evening, we get on and we show that

we will not be cowed. Thank you. So, what does Saturday's

attack mean for Thursday's general election?

Well, there are questions for both main parties to answer

on their record in dealing with terrorism and how they propose

As Home Secretary, a post she held for seven years,

Theresa May presided over a 22% cut to the police budget

There are now 19,000 fewer police compared to 2010,

with the Labour Party accusing the Conservatives of trying to

The Government points out that, since 2015, the policing

And that funding for counterterrorism has been increasing

However, with the police monitoring around 3000 subjects of interest,

and three terror incidents in the last three months,

Theresa May has been criticised for replacing control orders,

which placed terror suspects under intense supervision,

with what have been described as "looser" rules.

However, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has also come in for criticism

after he admitted he'd spent his career opposing key pieces

of anti-terror legislation, leaving the Conservatives to claim

he can't be trusted with the nation's security.

In 2011, Mr Corbyn joined Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and

Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott in voting against putting al-Qaeda

on a Government list of proscribed terrorist organisations.

Two years ago, the Labour leader said he wasn't happy over the police

shoot-to-kill policy, although last night he said

he would take whatever action was "necessary and effective"

Mr Corbyn has also faced uncomfortable questions

about his associations with the IRA and members of Hamas,

which the UK Government considers a terrorist organisation.

Both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn have been

criticising each other over this issue - let's have a look

at the Labour leader speaking last night,

and the Prime Minister speaking at an event this morning.

You cannot protect the public on the cheap.

The police and security services must get the resources they need,

Theresa May was warned by the Police Federation,

Safeguarding the security of our country takes leadership.

That's why since 2010, in the face of a growing threat,

we protected the budget for counterterrorism policing

and increased the resources available to the security

It's why, since 2015, when Jeremy Corbyn's front bench

was arguing for the police to be cut by a further 10%, we've

not cut the police, but protected their budget.

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. I can welcome Jonathan Ashworth now to the

Daily Politics but I will start with Dominic Raab. Labour has accused the

Conservatives of giving security on the cheap and there is evidence for

that? I'm afraid if you look at, just take the evidence from this

terrible attack at London Bridge, within eight minutes the armed

police were there responding decisively and taking out of the

three terrorists. Talking about having other ordinary bobbies on the

beat is not going to deal with an attack like that, it would be deeply

irresponsible, we have already seen some of the ordinary officers that

were involved suffering injuries. You need to be willing to have the

armed police, we are putting 1500 more armed officers at the service

of the country, you need to have them trained and equipped and

ultimately willing to take out the terrorists, and I think really what

we have seen from Jeremy Corbyn is an attempt to deflect on the

questions you have rightly put out in your clip that he needs to

answer. Theresa May has been Home Secretary for six years,

assiduously, robustly, but calmly, doing whatever it takes to protect

the country from terrorism. Except police numbers have gone down, she

has been Home Secretary for seven years previous to being Prime

Minister and police budgets were cut by a fifth. Crime is down a third.

But if we are looking at the numbers, if there is any claim to

the evidence from -- any evidence to the claim from Labour that policing

is being done on the cheap, 19,000 fewer officers on the streets, 1000

fewer armed officers ready for deployment, with the benefit of

hindsight, do you think the public deserve an apology from the

Government for cutting numbers? No, this is wrong... The figures are not

wrong. Crime has been cut by a third. What you cannot pretend is

you are going to send an ordinary bobby on the beat in to deal with

the kind of horrific attack we saw on the weekend. Just an illustration

of this... These are police officers I'm talking about, these are police

numbers. To deal with a terrorist attack, which is the issue of the

day, you need to have them armed and authorised to go in, and even the

armed officers dealing with people with explosives around their bodies

were incredibly brave. You couldn't expect to have ordinarily bobbies

going to deal with that. What Jeremy Corbyn is dealing with that is

deeply irresponsible. Let's be clear on the number of armed police, have

they fallen, the numbers, since 2010? My understanding is since 2015

our commitment has been to putting 1500... Since 2010 they have fallen,

haven't they, armed officers? I am not sure of the headline numbers.

The Met Commissioner Cressida Dick said the armed police are properly

resourced. But they also have to be is properly armed and trained and

authorised to take the decisive action that they did on Saturday.

Otherwise more people would be suffering. Jonathan Ashworth, we

talked about the response time, armed police were there in eight

minutes otherwise I'm sure the carnage would have been much worse.

In a way, they have got the resources and the numbers that they

need, they responded very effectively, didn't they?

Can I just say, could I have not had the chance, because I was late, I

have huge praise for the extraordinarily brave response from

the police and emergency services on Saturday evening, they really make

you proud to be British. On the broader point, we have seen cuts

while Theresa May was Home Secretary of 20,000 police officers. On your

point of armed police, cut by 1000 by Theresa May since 2010. A lot of

the security agencies have seen their budget cuts while Theresa May

was Home Secretary. They have been cut since 2010 while Theresa May was

Home Secretary. Let me finish. The Conservative Party have wanted to

position this election as a referendum on Theresa May so it is

only fair that we scrutinise her record as Home Secretary, and hers

is one where 20,000 police officers were cut, 1000 armed police cut,

security agencies cut and I'm not convinced that her whole line about,

she is going to stand up and make our streets safer, I don't think it

is true. I will let you talk in a second because you and your

colleagues have always said, Judge us on our record, and we are judging

you on this specific record and also the fact that Theresa May said

yesterday, enough is enough, which is a strange phrase because you

might have asked what is bothering her now that did not bother her

before. On police numbers, Jeremy Corbyn has gone so far as to say she

should resign over the cuts in police numbers. What do you say to

that? Labour's position in 2015 was that

we should cut police numbers possibly by up to 10% so it is rank

hypocrisy. On the question of judging us on our record, when you

judge a Government Prime Minister it is on what you do in practice and on

Saturday night, in horrific circumstances, there was a terrific

response, within eight minutes they were taken out, not just because we

have the right resources but the right leadership, willing to do the

difficult things that need to be done in that situation. Jeremy

Corbyn has done a U-turn overnight... Let's talk about that.

Leadership and response is important, people have to know what

action is going to be taken and whether they have political support.

Do you share your leader's view that there are problems with the current

shoot-to-kill policy that the police used on Saturday night? Our leaders

spoke out last night that he is clear that he would support the

police taking similar action in similar circumstances in the future.

Let's listen to what he said two years ago on this.

If we saw the kind of horror in Paris here,

if you were Prime Minister, would you order security services

onto the street to stop people being killed?

Of course you'd bring people onto the streets to prevent

and ensure there is safety within our society.

Much better that's done by the police than the security

services, much better we have strong and effective community policing,

neighbourhood policing and a cohesive society that

Obviously that is essential, and so that's one of the messages

I will be putting to the Prime Minister.

But if you were Prime Minister, would you be happy to order people,

police or military, to shoot-to-kill on Britain's streets.

I'm not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general, I think

that is quite dangerous and I think can often be counter-productive.

I think you have to have security that prevents people firing off

There are various degrees of doing things, as we know,

but the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing.

Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening,

So Jeremy Corbyn wasn't happy with this shoot to kill policy. He said

two years ago, he said it was dangerous and counter-productive?

Have you shown the clip of what he said last night where he would

support the police and any action they need to take. Should people

believe what he said two years ago, because he was very clear about it,

or should they believe what he said last night? People should judge what

we said in the manifesto and this election campaign. Jeremy said last

night, we will support the police to take the action they need to take,

including what they did the other night, to shoot those despicable

terrorists who are killing people on the streets. There is this issue of

trust. Seamus Milne was recorded on a train discussing how Jeremy Corbyn

should handle questions over Trident renewal and shut down those

questions on Trident renewal. And he said, this is a proxy question, so

that is why I am always saying I think we will do whatever is

necessary and effective to protect our people. The same line Jeremy

Corbyn news last night, whatever is necessary and effective. Is that

your leader's answer to disguise his true views? He has been clear on his

position over nuclear weapons. But the Labour Party's position. I don't

want to talk about Trident renewal because we know what his views are

on that and he has been consistent, but this line he was advised to use

by his head of communication, a catch all phrase to say whatever is

necessary in an election campaign to reassure people to disguise his

views when two years ago he said he wasn't happy with this shoot to kill

policy. Advisers advise all the time. Theresa May will be getting

advice as well. But he used that line. Yes, advisers will advise

Dominic. Isn't it just because we are in an election he has two save

what is necessary. His real views are quite clear, it is

counter-productive and dangerous. He says we will maintain our nuclear

deterrent. We would use it. Nobody wants to be in a position where you

would want to use it, that would be the most horrible circumstance. But

we will do nothing to compromise the safety of this country. He won't get

us cutting police by 20000 and then going to the Police Chiefs and

telling them they are crying wolf when they complain about it. You

advocated more cuts in policing. Don't talk over each other. It is

hypocrisy for them to criticise when they said there would be even more

cuts. The bottom line is, and you made the point very clearly, if you

got a U-turn on shoot to kill, two days after a terror attack, three

days before we go to the polls, it goes directly to leadership. Theresa

May has spent six years doing whatever it takes to protect the

country. By cutting police by 20,000. Can you talk about the

policy about changing one's mind in the middle of a campaign. Can you

take what Jeremy Corbyn said last night at face value given the

resources and the powers to the police and what they need to do,

given what he said two years ago. We have said it in the manifesto, it is

a contract with the people and we want to be judged on our record. The

Tory party is cutting 20,000 police and 1000 less armed police officers

on the streets. When anybody raise that issue with the Prime Minister,

she said they were crying wolf. If it is about judging your record and

Theresa May and the government cannot be blamed directly, this did

happen while the Tories were in power, these three attacks and the

murder of Lee Rigby, they have happened when the Tories have been

in power. They not accountable? I don't think we went around saying

the 7th of July was the responsibility of Tony Blair. Are

they accountable for it? The fact of the matter is, you have to take into

account the countless terrorist attacks we foiled, the change in the

nature of terrorism, the lone wolf attacks. You have made it more

difficult by reducing the numbers? We saw on Saturday night with

actions, not words, we know we have finite public resources because of

the deficit, so we have had to make difficult decisions. We have made

sure the armed police and the armed response of the best they could be.

We have a leader who will do whatever it takes. Jeremy Corbyn, U

turn shoot to kill, drone strikes on Islamic State, he is not prepared to

take the difficult decisions. Control orders, you got rid of them

as well. Now, it's worth remembering that,

whereas there have been three attacks in the last three months,

the majority of terrorist plots have been prevented by the police

and the security services. Less than three months ago,

on Wednesday 22nd March, there was a car and knife attack

carried out by one Two weeks ago, on Monday 22nd May,

a suicide bomber blew himself up in the Manchester Arena,

killing 22 people. And the London Bridge attack

on Saturday has currently claimed However, the Prime Minister said

yesterday that the police and the intelligence agencies have

disrupted five terrorist plots since And, since 2013, the authorities

have stopped a total And, as we mentioned earlier,

there are around 3000 people currently engaged in plots and up

to 18,000 people who have come to the attention

of the security services. And joining me to discuss

this is Lord Carlile, the former Independent Reviewer

of Terrorism Legislation, and Nazir Afzal, the former Chief

Prosecutor for North West England. It is worth remembering the majority

of terrorist plots are prevented by the authorities but we know there

have been three attacks in less than three months. Do you believe the

police and intelligence agencies have the powers they need? I do and

Cressida Dick said so yesterday. The argument about 20,000 community

police officers has nothing to do with terrorism. It is a different

argument. But it is clear to all of those involved good knowledge in

counterterrorism policing and related issues, the authorities do

have the resources they need and they have been broadly very

successful. They have intercepted 18 plots in the last three years but of

course, as the Prime Minister said in her speech a few minutes ago, I

do need to review the policy because of the changing activities of

so-called Islamic states. Are the authorities using the powers they

have at their disposal, when you look at the legislation? Tpims, I

know you have been critical of and they are a looser version of the

control order. They have only been used three times and those control

orders who can stop jihadist back and stop -- coming back from Syria

haven't been used at all. Tpims have not been used. In 2010, 2011, the

Coalition Government decided to get rid of control orders, wrongly. It

was a political decision by Nick Clegg. As a result, Tpims were

brought into effect and they go weaker than control orders. I was

the independent reviewer for the whole period to control orders were

involved and I looked at them every day. They may have saved many lives.

Really? So we should revert in to the insertion into Tpims of the

controls under control orders, because it works. What do you say

about that? I respect his view, but I am not sure any evidence is there

to prevent these last attacks. Control orders leaked, they abscond

rate was terrible but it did improve. If you are at a level where

you are not sure what people to, you cannot have them permanently on

control orders. The reason may says enough is enough and we need to

change our approach. Three days before an election, I will be

careful about this. If there is any evidence we need to look at any

other powers, I will be willing to do that again. But when I looked at

this in some detail there wasn't any evidence control orders could deal

with the kind of problems we are now seeing. I am not saying control

orders would have helped with these individuals, there is no way of

knowing. There was no absconding in the last three years of control

orders, they were very well want. The control orders were well within

human rights legislation and they worked. There were only covering

eight people of about 2000. You are wrong about that. At any one time

the largest number of people control was 23 and there was always room for

that to be increased. Would you support a return to control orders?

I would. I thought it was a huge mistake to get rid of them. Jeremy

Corbyn was in the same position as the reason may. I would definitely

support them. Now, Theresa May made a statement outside Downing Street

yesterday and described for areas where more needs to be done, one of

those was the Internet and technology. Do you agree the

Internet can provide a safe space for terrorists? We know it does. I

think they have taken down 250,000 websites in the last two years.

There are tens of thousands replacing them. This work is not

something just the British have to do, it is international. Most

websites are centred in San Diego, California. So yes, there are

individuals who are being radicalised online. As we have

appreciated, one of the individuals we may talking about in the next day

or two will have been radicalised online. There is work that needs to

happen online but that is only part of the issue. Most radicalisation

takes place within place within communities, within conversations

happening in places that aren't just in the mosque any more. We focus on

the mosque where people are being radicalised. If anything, it is

happening outside the mosque, in places perhaps we don't necessarily

have the ability to look into it and see what is going on. But we have

got to deal with that. The Prime Minister is right in a sense by

saying more needs to be done, but we don't know what needs to be done. I

cannot think of any more legislation. Lord Carlile will know

better than me, but we have had 11 terrorism acts since 2000. We have

run out of names for them now. I cannot think of any more

legislation, the conversation you were having a moment ago, go back to

stuff we have had before. My point is, the answer to this lies in the

communities. Communities have two hapless, they need to be engaged

with and be able to trust the people they are giving the information too.

What you may have touched on is, there has been thousands of of

information coming through through the security services but do they

have the resources to act upon that? I will leave the politicians to deal

with that. There have been claims made people called about the people

involved in the last two attacks and be perhaps were not followed up. It

hasn't been verified in that sense but did look up the cause, let's

look at the Prevent programme. It has been criticised by some parts of

the Muslim community, the Labour Party has criticised it, what is

wrong with it? It works very well when it works. It is poorly

communicated, poor engagement in the community. It is Miss understood in

some respects. Sometimes deliberately this understood by

people who wish to undermine it, for whatever reason. But when it works,

it works well. I can think of a thousand examples. This is part of

the problem with communication. All you hear of his examples when

somebody got it wrong. The reality is, I have a thousand examples where

people have been worked with, ensured they don't go off to Syria

in 150 cases or in other cases they have been given mental health

support or other career support. So it does work, but it hasn't worked

routinely across-the-board. Andy Burnham says the Prevent

creates alienation and the vision. Why do you want to drop it or

replace In places where it works it works

well, in other places it is viewed with suspicion. Is that because you

have undermined it? The part of the world I represent and hope to carry

on representing we have Prevent, I know it well, we work with it and

the picture that has been painted of elements of it working well and

being very important and we need to continue with it is one I absolutely

understand. We are saying, let's review it, let's involve the

community in Prevent. Did you think Prevent has been undermined? I agree

with every word Nazir said, it has been deliberately undermined by some

people. I believe, on the evidence I have seen, which is quite a lot,

that where Prevent works well, it works very, very well, and to say we

should get rid of it and start again is just ludicrous. What we need to

do is take the best practice of Prevent and roll it out across the

country with greater funding. This Government has promised that

funding. I hope that in the future... But it has been cut in

recent times. No, the Prevent funding has not been cut, it has

been increased consistently. There have been problems with changing

strategies towards Prevent, particularly around 2010-11, but

Prevent has been doing well, and other countries' capital have asked

how we do it. A lot of community groups were getting money to work

with young people... But Labour's line was that it has been cut? It is

legitimate to remove funding from one programme and put it into

another, that has happened all over the country. In the constituency I

represent, groups were complaining that the work they had been doing

with younger men had to be scaled back because the money was not there

any more. When I mention the community, of course, there is no

such thing as one homogenous Muslim community. Muslim communities, in

London they come from 52 countries, in the north they come from two or

three. The issue I have is that everybody, local Government as well,

is very lazy, it goes to the same community leaders, it does not go

out to the people doing phenomenal work in their communities and

support them in what they are doing. I think we need to change our

approach. Thank you both very much. Now let's find out

what else is happening There was a moment yesterday,

possibly the only moment in the whole election campaign, where all

the parties agreed on one thing, something that Theresa May set out

here. She said violence can never be allowed to disrupt the general

cryptic process and the general election will go ahead on Thursday.

All main parties except Ukip yesterday agreed to suspend national

campaigning but then we saw Theresa May come out and make a speech about

what she saw as some of the issues with her counterterrorism strategy,

critics say it was highly critical, and Jeremy Corbyn later on had a

speech in which he made some of his own criticisms, and again critics of

his said it was highly critical. Ukip did take part in a special

debate in the evening. Ukip's Paul Nuttall faced Jo

and a studio audience at a special debate in Bristol,

where, not surprisingly, I mentioned waterboarding

in the case if there was going to be an imminent terrorist attack,

and if we had to find out information quickly,

I wouldn't take anything off the table to ensure

that British women, men The Green co-leader Jonathan Bartley

was grilled at the same event, and was far from willing to commit

to the use of drone strikes abroad. It's going to be a matter

of international law, You have to take every case

on a case-by-case basis. This morning, though,

the campaign was well The giveaway - a party

leader in a pinny. The Lib Dems have been clear

they're not keen on Brexit. Now it appears Tim Farron is not

keen on breakfast either. Nicola Sturgeon has been

taking the really high They're calling it the Nicolopter,

apparently, as the SNP leader gets around 30 constituencies

across Scotland before polling day. And then she made this pretty

incredible pitch to voters. Ellie Price reporting at the

beginning of that film. The Democratic Unionist Party leader

Arlene Foster says the Northern Ireland parties were close

to an agreement on Brexit before their talks were interrupted

by Theresa May's announcement The traditional contest

in Northern Ireland between unionists and nationalists

is being played out against a backdrop of uncertainty

over what Brexit will mean for the border with the Irish

Republic, which will be the UK's In a moment we'll speak

to Arlene Foster, but first our Northern Ireland political editor

Mark Devenport reports from Mrs Foster's home constituency

of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where her DUP is backing a candidate

from the Ulster Unionist Party in an attempt to hold the highly

marginal seat against a strong In Fermanagh, it's not just politics

which is balanced on a knife edge. The county's award-winning black

bacon is exported far afield. But this Enniskillen butcher fears

that Brexit might prove a rash move. Right across Europe,

we can export our bacon. Now, the big concern for us

is what is going to happen Everyone talks about the hard Brexit

and the soft Brexit, but reality is it is just one word,

"Brexit," and we are, from the business community,

we feel that we're in a wee bit This isn't no-man's land,

it's the Sheridans' land. Son David and father Robert farm

on either side of the border, crisscrossing the frontier at least

two or three times a day. David voted for Brexit because

of his annoyance with EU red tape. Now both generations are concerned

about what the future might hold. We're on the border as you know

here, and it's maybe going across to our farm,

back and forward, maybe we'd be Nobody seems to know

at the minute, there's nothing set in stone,

we don't know. The outgoing Ulster Unionist MP

Tom Elliott backed leaving the EU. If he holds his seat,

he promises to fight for a deal which will work for people living

along the border. Like all her Sinn Fein colleagues,

Michelle Gildernew will refuse to take her seat at Westminster

if she wins, but she says she will lobby for Northern Ireland

to retain special European status. I think Tom won the seat last

time against the odds, and I think it's going to be even

tougher for him this time. I think Sinn Fein were quite taken

aback the last time at losing, there were some problems internally,

some problems with their organisation of getting the vote

out, and they were stung by that, so they will really

go for it this time. Unlike Sinn Fein, the moderate

nationalist SDLP candidate Mary Garrity promises both to fight

Brexit and take a seat But if past elections

here are anything to go by, she's likely to be a long way behind

the front runners. It seems very likely that

Sinn Fein will take the seat. They're on a roll, the SDLP

candidate is not well known, and there's a feeling that,

in the wider Catholic nationalist republican community,

that unionists, having been pushed out of the majority,

lost the majority in the last election here for the Assembly,

should not be allowed pretend to re-establish it in a first

past the post election. Besides being the most westerly

constituency in this election, Fermanagh South Tyrone has to be one

of the most picturesque. These are the stunning

Marble Arch Caves, part of a limestone system

which stretches under the border. Whatever happens to the border up

on the surface, here the stalactites will continue to hang down

and the stalagmites But these caves are the centrepiece

of a cross-border geopark which has benefited from hundreds of thousands

of pounds of European funding, so even down here the implications

of Brexit run deep. And we're joined now from Belfast

by DUP leader Arlene Foster. Welcome to the Daily Politics. A

majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU,

yours was the only party to officially back Brexit. Why should

anybody worried about Brexit vote for the DUP? The question was asked

as a national question and that being the case we have to respect

the National opinion, and that was that we are to leave the European

Union. We are not fighting old battles. What we want to do now is

get on and get the best deal for Northern Ireland in the EU

negotiations and that is why it is very important that we have a strong

team of DUP MPs return to Westminster on Thursday so they can

speak up for Northern Ireland and stand strong for Northern Ireland

will stop what might convince people to vote for the DUP is if you had

assurances from the UK Government about how the customs arrangement

will work on the Irish border. Those negotiations have just begun. The

Irish Government and our own Government have said they don't want

a hard border. That is not an assurance, is it? What we have do do

now is work together to make sure that is a reality and use the

technology at our disposal to make it happen in a way that respects the

Common travel area before we entered the European Union. When I spoke to

Sinn Fein a few days ago, they said they couldn't see any scenario in

which there would be a totally frictionless border, whatever

happened in the Brexit negotiations, and that would seriously hamper

business interests and that Common travel area that you talked about.

Of course Sinn Fein are the only people talking about a hard border

and they are doing that for a very political reason, they said they

want no Brexit, no border, no Tory cuts. They don't have a positive

vision at all for Northern Ireland. But you cannot give the assurances

that what they are saying is wrong. What I am saying is they are the

only people saying, talking about a hard border but in actual fact

everyone else is working very hard to make sure that doesn't happen.

They are becoming very much, going back to their roots and becoming a

party of protest, standing outside talking about what they don't want

to see instead of getting on and making sure that we developed a

Northern Ireland outside of the European Union that works for

everybody. Let's talk about relations with Sinn Fein, the

Stormont executive relies on good relations between first and Deputy

First Minister, you compared Sinn Fein to a crocodile which would keep

coming back for more if you feed it. Would you put the relationship with

Michele O'Neil back after the election campaign saying things like

that? That was the last campaign by Sinn Fein Haupt -- pulled out of the

assembly and the executive. Why did they do that? Tell us about the

heating scandal but you were criticised for? If you let me

finish, they won't take their seats at Westminster either so they are

becoming a party of protest as opposed to a party of Government

that wants to get on and advocate for the people they represent and

their mandate, so I think it is regrettable that that is the case. I

would encourage them to come back to the table after the elections and

should be realistic about setting back of the devolved institutions

because I think everyone in Northern Ireland wants to see devolution

working for everybody in Northern Ireland, not just one community but

for everybody. Do you think you could build relations with Michelle

O'Neill? I respect Michelle O'Neill and I would hope she would respect

my mandate as leader of the largest party in Northern Ireland but we

will have to see if that is the case after the elections on Thursday,

whether she respects my mandate, because after the elections we go

back into negotiations to try to get

devolution back as quickly as possible. What are your red lines

when it comes to power-sharing? And Irish language act, gay marriage,

investigations into killings by state forces during the troubles?

Those are all red lines from Sinn Fein, we don't have any red lines,

we want to see devolution back up as quickly as we can. If we could start

today, I would do so. Can I ask, why speaking to the Belfast Telegraph

did a former minister said that same-sex marriage is a red line for

his party that would prevent a Government being formed? I said

those are red lines were Sinn Fein, they are saying they won't come back

into Government until they get all of these things sorted out. What I'm

saying is, let's get devolution back up and running and let's sort out

these issues as elected representatives working for

everybody, because people are hugely frustrated, they want to see us back

in Government dealing with the reform of our health service, which

desperately needs it, as we know from the waiting lists, they want to

see us dealing with education and infrastructure and jobs, so it is

wrong that Sinn Fein are holding us all to ransom and saying, unless all

of these matters are dealt with, we won't go back into devolution. We

want devolution back up and running now and it would be good if she

would come back in with her party and start governing, that is of

course what she was elected to do. Arlene Foster, thank you. it.

Now it's time for the latest in our series of interviews

with the smaller parties standing in the general election on Thursday.

The National Health Action party was founded in 2012 by two

consultants who opposed the Health and Social Care Act, which enacted

The party would start by repealing the 2012 Health and Social Care Act

which would reverse the reforms, including the removal

of the requirement to tender out contracts to the private sector.

They would also ensure that NHS funding increases in real

And call for the abolition of prescription charges in England

as is existing policy in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The party would introduce free social care and increase funding

to meet the needs of vulnerable elderly and disabled people.

And on Brexit the NHA want to safeguard the UK's

collaboration with the EU on health issues and medical research.

And now we are joined by the National Health Action

Thank you for coming onto the programme. Why do we need your

party? Our party started five years ago with the intention of fighting

to defend the NHS against cuts, underfunding and private Eye

Shenzhen. I think we need it now than ever before. I think we have

influenced Labour Party policy at the moment which has moved closer to

our position. But it is a single issue party? No, we fight on all the

social determinants of health, and that includes housing, education,

the environment, inequality, poverty and all those issues. You say you

have influence the Labour Party, which part of the manifesto have

been written with you in mind? We're part of a broader movement, moved it

towards the manifesto, it talks about repealing the health and

social care act. Which, we as a campaigner, I have been a campaigner

on the NHS for many years, including under the Labour government, it has

been reluctant to address the issue of privatisation of the NHS. I

welcome that, but I feel we need people like our party and other

campaigners to help. You thank Louise for your manifesto, it was

under Labour that opting out to the private sector started? I am pleased

to the endorsement. Would you have done it without them? Yes, and the

party for the NHS is the Labour Party because we will put in 37

billion to get rid of the waiting lists, get rid of the health and

social care act tampered capital investment into the NHS. Not by

forcing hospitals to sell off assets, we will give hospitals the

money to rebuild them and invest in IT as well. Would you rather see a

Labour Party elected than a Conservative Party? I would prefer

the Labour Party, as long as they stayed true to their promises. In

1997 Tony Blair promised to end the privatisation of the NHS and get rid

of PFI, not to go forward with PFI and they did the complete opposite.

We can't just trust people because of their manifesto. What you say

about the funding, your proposed funding isn't even going to meet the

projected rate of growth, if it kept up with GDP rates. He said the

Labour Party will not keep pace with a growing elderly population and

perhaps rising inflation at the moment. How would you fund an

increase in NHS funding eye 4% in real terms every year? This is not a

number we have picked out of the air. The OBR and other policies say

to maintain the quality of services and meet growing the mind, three to

4% is not keeping in line with the average running. People will want to

know how to fund it? I will not be part of the government and not

making detailed budget plans, but we will be pushing government, whoever

is in government to meet the funding need. It can be done through

taxation, in different ways, progressive taxation but also

looking at tax avoidance, corporate tax and those things. It can be done

by reducing the bureaucracy in the NHS and investing in health and

education. Do you accept that actually, in order to meet the needs

of a growing elderly population and rising costs, you need to look at

funding of 4% in the round every year in real terms in the NHS? I had

a look at the National health party manifesto, most G-7 countries have

an insurance contribution -based approach. Like Germany for instance?

Yes, and we are unique. The answer on funding is very clear, you have

got to have a strong economy. The problem is, this wish list of issues

you want to spend money on... If you have a strong economy, why can't you

spend more if you have different priorities? It is the only way to

get the revenue and it is revenue that pays for public services,

having a wish list is for the birds, unless you have a strong economy and

only the Conservatives can do that. Is there no role for the private

sector within the NHS? They could be a small role where there are gaps in

provision, temporarily. You shouldn't structure the NHS around

the market-based system. It is wasteful, it fragments and it is

chaotic and it short-changes patients because it diverts money

from front-line care. We would have an NHS which is substantially a

public service and we want to bring legislation to reinstated as a

public servers, more than just repealing the health and social care

act, reversing all of the privatisation. Thank you.

As we enter the final days of the general election campaign,

the pollsters have been very busy and we were greeted by a flurry

An Opinium for the Observer found support for the Conservatives had

dipped to 43% with Labour on 37%, the Lib Dems on 6% and Ukip on 5%

and a Survation poll for the Sunday Times predicts

support for the Conservatives will fall further to 40% with Labour

I'm taking it to London's Southbank Centre to ask people's views

And here's the question we're asking the great

British public today, opinion polls -

On the day, they never seem to come out as planned previously,

so I think there's an element of fiction to it.

OK, put it back in, very honest, very honest.

Because what people say about what they're going

to do isn't necessarily what they are going to do.

Here's someone who juggles data for a living.

What do you think about this as an opinion gathering method?

Well, as my idol Peter Snow would say, it's just a bit of fun.

When you are looking to do an accurate, scientific poll,

you hope to accurately represent the population you are trying

to survey in the sample that takes part in that survey.

So, for instance you need the right number of old people,

the right number of young people, the right number of

After the last election, the professionals realised

they didn't have the right number of Tory supporters and had spoken

I think some people don't always say what they think.

That's the problem, particularly Tory voters.

And why are different polling companies coming up

Usually you could come up with four or five reasons why pollsters

are coming up with different numbers, but on this occasion

there is something quite straightforward going on.

And it's whether or not you believe young people and people who didn't

turn out in the last general election in 2015, who now

say they are going to, whether they actually do.

If you believe them, then it's a closer race.

Those pollsters who are saying it is a three, four point lead

If, like me and you tend to be suspicious of people who say

they will change behaviours which are fairly embedded

in historical precedent, then you should believe the likes

of me and I'm saying currently it's a 12 point

We are doing a survey about opinion polls...

In other words, are we all asking too many youngsters and people

Do you pick up the newspaper every day and go, "I wonder

No, I'm pretty sure what the polls are going to say.

Theresa May is still ahead but Labour is squeezing in there.

YouGov has suggested that would result in a hung parliament.

Based on the current polling, we produced a broad range

At the time, it was anything from 274 to 345 seats

You need 326 for a majority, at that time it was possible that

a hung parliament could occur, if there was an election that day.

The headline was, "YouGov Predicts A Hung Parliament."

What you often see during an election campaign

is that the interpretation polls, whether it's by broadcasters

or the media, or social media, is somewhat different

from the interpretation of the polls we put out.

After three sweltering hours of doing this...

Who's got some opinions they'd like to share with me?

Maybe the politicians have a point, the polls are fascinating snapshots,

but it's the one on June the 8th that's most accurate.

There we go, a big majority of people here on the Southbank

think the opinion polls are more fiction than science.

And here ends possibly the dodgiest opinion poll

That has never stopped the Daily Politics and both of you are banned

in the next discussion by saying the only one counts is Thursday. There

is a confused picture and the polls seem to have a Conservative lead of

1% of the 12%, but there is a general trend in support going to

Labour? The polls have definitely narrowed. We would argue there could

be Jeremy Corbyn in Number Ten. But as a candidate, the polling thing is

a distraction. It is great for the media, different story huge day. Do

you ever look at the polls? I keep an eye on them, but it is a

distraction on getting the message across. We are getting the message

across on leadership. All this tittle tattle about polls,

particularly when they are so far ranging and so far apart, is a

distraction. It is good for the media, I am not so sure it is good

for the country and for a politician trying to get elected. Do you ignore

them all together or are you taking more interest now as they seem to be

moving in your direction with a focus on younger people voting

Labour? I have ignored them since the last general election. I

thought, in 2015, I thought we were heading towards a hung parliament

and then the exit poll came out at ten o'clock. What I would say is,

seven or eight weeks ago, it felt like the Conservatives were very far

ahead. I am still getting on the doorstep, people raising the

dementia tax, the Tories taking away free school meals. I think people

have looked that Theresa May, she is not what she thought, she doesn't

represent what they thought she was. She has been exposed under the

scrutiny, the same as Jeremy Corbyn. Your media love to do this thing

based on the frostiness of the polls. We have seen on economy and

Brexit. I feel a party message coming on. She has shown she has got

the leadership and has got the strength of character frankly, to

lead this country on the key issue that counts, which will be the

Brexit negotiation. She cut the NHS, she got skills and she will carry on

cutting the police. The One o'clock News is starting

over on BBC One now. I'll be here at noon

tomorrow with all the big political stories of the day,

do join me then.