11/05/2017 Newsnight

Our manifesto will be an offer and we believe the policies

So what will voters make of this offer from Jeremy Corbyn?

Tonight, we analyse in full the politics, the policy

and the reaction to the leaked manifesto, as we

It has major spending implications for the country.

The voters want to see a bigger state.

It's not as if - from what we've seen, at any rate -

that they've come up with things that people don't want.

The problem is, they've come up with everything

Many of the ideas have a popular ring on the doorstep.

Will voters trust those bearing the message?

David Grossman has been gauging reaction.

But I'm loathe to say what I really think at the minute.

And where does this manifesto fit into the political firmament?

Our panel is raring to go, with our left-right blackboard.

It was not so long ago we moaned about all political parties looking

Failure to offer proper choice to the voter,

failure to bring anything new to the table.

Well, no-one looking at Labour's manifesto -

in whatever form it finally emerges - can parrot that line now.

If the leaked draft remains true to character, then this

is a bold political treatise, and one we're exploring

It offers a role for the state, perhaps not seen since the post-war

It seeks bigger national services for both health and education,

on top of the renationalisation of some rail and energy firms.

You can call it backward looking, if the talk of unions

and a new "Department for Labour" makes you think of the 1970s.

You can call it forward looking, if you think it speaks

to a generation emerging from Britain's worst

It is - in Jeremy Corbyn's words - 'a promise to transform

And it involves huge quantities of new spending, not yet costed.

Tonight, we will analyse the politics, the policies

Nick Watt, our political editor, is here now.

We know that we have not got the costings in what we know today, but

did this Satan more in a meeting about whether leagues came from?

Jeremy Corbyn is furious with the leak and he has commissioned an

independent Commission to find out what happened and his allies believe

the moderates, the people in the labour movement to tried and failed

to dislodge him last year, that they were behind the leak. They regard

this as a deeply hostile act to ensure that the manifesto was

betrayed as it was on the front page of the Daily Telegraph today as a

throwback to the 1970s. What these allies of Corbyn are saying, they

think the moderates want this to be seen as a new version of the 1983

manifesto, so that would ensure a heavy defeat for Labour and they

would be able to come after him again. One Corbyn allies said they

are utterly confident the manifesto is not like 1983 and it is a punter

friendly. There are compromises but I was told if a socialist campaign

group of Labour MPs have persuaded the Ed Miliband to do this last

time, they would have been ecstatic. Any word from the moderates tonight?

Perish the thought they would have reached this manifesto, of course!

Some believe this manifesto is about turning out to the core Labour vote

on June 8th so Jeremy Corbyn does not suffer a heavy defeat and he can

stay on as Labour leader. I was told by one senior figure on the

so-called moderate side today that John McDonnell faced questioning

today over what was described as the vast spending commitments in this

manifesto, and he did say, it is fully costed and that will be

published next week. But then a senior Labour figure said this to

me, this manifesto, will never be implemented, so it is all rather

academic. So in a way, today really ended up being the unofficial launch

of the Labour manifesto. Prime Minister Corbyn? It has been a

bruising journey... For a manifesto he believes should provide the route

into Number 10. Today was meant to be a relatively low-key event. But

the traditional pre-election clause five meeting to approve the Labour

manifesto turned into a bit of a media circus after draft versions

will eat. If Jeremy Corbyn could wave a magic wand, he would not be

producing this exact document, it commits a future Labour government

to renewing Trident nuclear deterrent after he failed to change

party policy, but the leaked versions do encapsulate his key

beliefs about the need for a massive programme of public investment, the

gradual nationalisation of Hezbollah but railways and other state

intervention. -- Hezbollah but railways. Labour were forced to

finalise the manifesto at short notice but this did not have the

feel of something scribble out on the back of a packet. The details

will be set out to you including the costings for the pledges and

promises that we make. Chief strategist have been working on the

document since Jeremy Corbyn's election last year, after becoming

convinced the Prime Minister would go to the polls. One early

supporter, he became disillusioned with Jeremy Corbyn, was impressed. I

do think the manifesto in terms of its key policies and the vision,

because people generally do not vote on individual policies, a vision

about realising this country's great potential, not being held back

because of vested interests and investing in public services and the

economy, if that cuts through, Labour had a chance to turn this

around. One veteran of the Labour elections agrees this will appeal on

the doorsteps, but there is a weakness. It is an extraordinary

document from what we have seen, it has got everything in it. A

cornucopia of ideas, everything everybody said the focus group they

would like the Government to do for them. The problem is, that is kind

of not how it works with election pledges, that does not give you

credibility. Take the and energy prices, Ed Miliband introduced it

and promised it and they looked at him and did not believe he would

deliver. The so-called Labour moderates had feared the Corbyn team

would produce a 21st-century version of the party's 1983 manifesto,

famously dubbed the longest suicide note in history. One veteran of

Labour's most recent election loss believes this comparison is only

partially fair. You see quite a lot of material in this manifesto

familiar to people from the 2015 manifesto. I see quite a lot in this

manifesto which will be familiar for people who watched the 1983 general

election as we were heading to disaster. I think the truth the

manifesto and for a general election campaign is we never know what it

means until afterwards. The country will soon be sizing up the choice

between Labour and its vision of public investment and Theresa May

and have gained strong and stable leadership. Corbyn supporters

believe they are on stronger ground. David Cameron promised in the 2015

election stability against the chaos of Ed Miliband, we have not had a

more chaotic period since World War II in British history so they have

not quite delivered on that. In four weeks' time, Britain could have a

Prime Minister who for 30 years was shunned by his own party as a

marginal figure on the left. We now have a chance to decide whether

Jeremy Corbyn's vision, with the odd revision, should entitle him to take

his place in Number 10. Barry Gardiner, who was in that

meeting, joins me now. The IFS says this manifesto

is about the state getting deeply involved in much more of the private

sector than it has been since 1970s, No, I don't think so at all. What we

are doing, we are trying to free people of from the things that are

holding them back. If you look at a young couple today, they cannot get

even a deposit for a rented accommodation, they cannot get a

mortgage, they cannot start a family. And they are saying, why? We

both have jobs, we both work, and we cannot do the things our parents

easily could have done at that age. Teachers feel they are not able to

be doing in schools and teaching children the way they would want.

But you would not be against the state getting bigger to help? It is

not about the state, it is bringing people up and letting them do the

things they can do and they should be doing, innovation. It was so

funny when you had the peace at the very beginning. The woman was almost

criticising this manifesto. The trouble is, this offers people

everything. This is IFS reading your manifesto it so far, the state

getting deeply involved in much more of the private sector in a way it

has not since the 1970s and perhaps the 1940s, that is wrong, we will

see a smaller state? Where will we be? What we are trying to do is

trying to enable people to get on with their lives and feel that they

are properly rewarded for doing the things that they just simply wants

to do. So is the state going to be bigger, smaller, the same? Very

simple question. The state will regulate in terms of taxation and

you have seen what the Conservatives have said, they will not give a

promised on VAT. We talk about nationalisation and intervention,

lots of ways he will spend more on infrastructure, you talk about a

national education service and National Health Service, so tell us

the state will get bigger and we are proud of it! Is it not wonderful we

are talking about putting half eight trillion pounds... White do you seem

to be embarrassed to be backing... I am not embarrassed, you are trying

to put me into a form of words and I do not want the form of words, we

should talk about the substance. You are talking semantics, and want to

talk about the substance. The substance that says we are going to

do it across three, not just eight second Crossrail in London, from the

West Coast to the East coast of the North of England. That is big ideas.

Is this a socialist manifesto and of the country votes for your Labour

government, do we become a socialist country, a Social Democrat country?

You are obsessed with labels, let's talk about the issue. There is a

philosophy here from a man that has believed the same things for three

decades. It is not just from a man, it is from today, there were 60

people in that room. Ed Miliband said he was a socialist and proud,

are you a socialist, is this a socialist manifesto? The Labour

Party has always been a socialist Democratic party and that is where I

will always stand, but it is not about me and names, it is ensuring

the people who feel they are held back in this country... Shall start

centres are closing, they have taken ?4.6 million out of social care

because the health service, the figures today, 2.5 million people

now waiting more than four hours to get into an Accident and Emergency.

These are the issues. We are saying we have solutions to this and the

lady said it is what everybody wants. You are right, big efforts to

increase spending on social care and the NHS and education we heard from

Jeremy Corbyn yesterday. Taking back the franchises on the railways. One

area that will appeal to voters is immigration. Their rules and

reasonable management of immigration. There is not an awful

lot in the pages we have seen so far about the immigration policy. We

know you do not like the Theresa May idea of tens of thousands as a, is

there any? Theresa May does not like the tens of thousands idea because

she tried to get down to tens of thousands and she promised to when

she was Home Secretary and it is now 270,000. She did not do very well

here. That was when she was Home Secretary. You have said do not

bother with the cap? No, let me be clear, we will put our economic

policy before our immigration policy, and we will make sure we

have immigration into this country that is beneficial to our economy,

that creates jobs analysis ID, that allows us to be a prosperous and

innovative society where we are growing our economy. That is the

right way to do it. She is subordinating the economic policy to

immigration control. Am a Labour voter, I care about immigration and

I want to know, what that means in concrete terms and you say it is

270,000, would you be happy to see that go up? Let me be very clear, at

the moment for the rest of the world, we have immigration controls.

Different types of user. That is what we have. They have those

controls in place. And talk to me broadly, would you be happy if it

went up? Immigration numbers will always go both down and up according

to the needs of the economy. If they go up to half a million, you are

relaxed? If it is beneficial to our economy and it provides jobs and

growth in this country, and if that jobs and growth is distributed

fairly through the system, because that has been a problem with the way

society is run, it has not been distributed fairly through the

system. It could go up to one million and

you would say, that's fine, we are relaxed because it is benefiting the

economy? It is silly trying to trap me into a number. It is not a trap.

You are talking to voters for whom immigration is literally the central

issue, it is what drove many people to vote for Brexit... Is it? Do you

not think their job is the central issue, they are not in a zero hour

contract and they can't afford to even set up a home or start a

family, is that not the central issue. Labour's message is that

immigration is not a priority. Again, you are trying to trap me

into a form of words. It is not about it not being a priority or not

the number one priority, we are saying the key thing in our society

is to have a fair society, that is why we are talking about their

management and control about immigration. There is nothing in

here about free movement. Of course not. Free movement, when we leave

the European Union, and we accept we are leaving the EU, the free

movement of people goes. The free movement only exists within the

internal market and we are not going to be in the internal market. And

you are accepting that if a Labour government is in power free movement

world of? We have already said that! You are behind the times. -- free

movement of people would go. That is not in your manifesto, why don't you

say it? Forgive me, you have seen a leaked draft of a manifesto, you

haven't seen before manifesto. Is it in the 41? You will see on Tuesday.

Keir Starmer has been saying for weeks that the Labour Party accepts

that we are leaving the EU, and as we are leaving we are no longer

going to be a member of the EU, and therefore free movement of peoples

to because it is free movement within the internal market. That is

not actually in the draft. Let's go to be exciting things about this

manifesto, let's talk about the way we have a vision for society about

innovation, a vision for society creating a low carbon economy, low

carbon future, doing all of the things for the environment, making

sure that we protect the environment in the way that this Government

wants to deregulate it. This is a wonderful list of policies, there is

a something of everyone, it is a catalogue of delightful things, and

yet we have this Mirror poll of people you are pursue Mowgli quite

friendly towards. On the back of this they are saying that

fundamentally -- people you are presumably quite friendly towards.

They are saying there is no confidence in the capability of the

leadership to deliver this. Let me be absolutely clear, on Tuesday next

week when we launched this manifesto, every single element of

this manifesto will be costed, absolutely clearly, how much it's

going to cost and where that money is coming from. So we are absolutely

clear that we can deliver all the things that we are promising to do.

Even though a week ago today you were losing 500 councillors in the

local actions, you were losing in the south valleys of Wales. What has

that got to do with money? I don't talk about money, I talked about

credibility in your party to deliver this. Surely you have already been

to the electorate wants this month and they don't team to believe that

you are the party that is capable of delivering? You think we have lost

this election before the vote has counted, I don't. I believe this is

a transformative manifesto, I believe what your introduction said,

this is telling people that Labour will deliver all of the things that

they genuinely want, or they -- all the things that have been holding

them back will be taken away, there will be a redress of the

inequalities in this country, that is the way that people can move from

what they thought about local elections in rural areas to what's

going to happen Won Jun Lee eight. Because we have policies. -- on June

88. The Conservative Party will not give you a single policy. They have

kept their minister is quiet the whole time. Will areas like Glasgow

decide? We have the policies to take Britain forward, they don't. Thank

you, Barry Gardiner. So, will this emerge

as the manifesto Jeremy Corbyn has How radical will it

look in practice? Perhaps the standout statement

is the unashamed commitment to some higher taxes

and greater public spending - of politicians on all sides have

shied away from saying out loud. We know little of the costing

details of the commitment - We have been told it has already

been sorted out. But what would Corbyn's

Britain look like? Here's our policy

editor, Chris Cook. The leaked Labour manifesto has

certainly proved to be distinctive. Each newspaper has

found something to say. Not least because the

document promises a lot From what we can tell,

Labour are planning a substantial increase in tax, possibly an even

bigger increase in spending. But they do have a rule on debt -

it says it has to fall as a share of national income over

the parliament, and it's possible that even with their additional

borrowing, they'd be on course will try to make the case,

as they always do, that What Labour's political opponents

will be doing is going through it, looking for expensive things,

and trying to kind of come up with a grand total for how much

the Labour platform costs, to try to undermine its credibility,

so that people can't go, actually, I quite like that idea,

because the truth is But manifestos aren't

bean-counting exercises, And this one focuses on a large

part on the gig economy. Labour wants to raise

employment standards through higher minimum wages

and so-called sectoral bargaining. Sectoral bargaining would really

help workers in low-paid industries like care,

hospitality and logistics. But it would help good

employers too, and stop them And it's very simple -

it's about setting a framework a framework agreement -

employers and unions and setting minimum

standards for pay, skills It's still the case, even today,

that your public services are by and large run

by public sector workers. But it's also true that in recent

decades policymakers have got more relaxed about the idea that,

if the public sector can't offer the service they want

at a price they like, they'll go to the private

sector instead. And this draft manifesto proposes

changing direction on that front. Specifically, it suggests ending

the franchising of rail services, and proposes reversing

the involvement of the private The manifesto also proposes

changes for companies And proposes extensions

of the role of the state. I'll tell you this, I wouldn't be

sorry if it was a 60% tax... But this is all a long way

to the right of where Mr Corbyn used There's no wider

nationalisation plan. How, then, have some of Mr Corbyn's

old friends taken it? Back in 1993 I was a young

Bennite foot soldier, very taken on the idea

of a fundamental reverse shift in the balance of power

towards working people We were talking about

policies such as a planned nationalisation of one key company

in every economic sector. Clearly what we've got today

is nothing like that. But Britain is a very

different country. This is very much the right package

for Britain in 2017. For left stalwarts, it's a step

in the right direction. And some of their ambitions

about the role of the state have As when Margaret Thatcher

said they would. 3.5 years ago, defenders

of the status quo tried to brand How absurd it will seem in a few

years' time that the state ran Pickfords removals

and Gleneagles hotels. So it's not a 1970s Labour left

prospectus - this isn't 1983. But you probably won't be able

to tell that from the attacks So, does this manifesto tell us

the age of austerity is dead Joining us now - Ann Pettifer,

Keynesian economist. And John Peet, Political Editor

at The Economist. It does seem interesting this time

around, it is not just Labour, nobody is really talking about

posterity, debt or the deficit. Have we just sort of shelf that now --

austerity. Yes, it didn't work. Economists told politicians but all

they had to do was cut spending and the public debt would fall. The

public debt has doubled we stayed high. The politicians are now both

confused and embarrassed. -- has stubbornly stayed high. We are in

limbo, not knowing which way to turn. I hope people have finally

realised that actually you don't pay for public services from taxation,

and governments have never paid for public services from taxation, they

loan finance. You loan finance to pay the public service. There was a

certain moral high ground but all people were saying, don't pass that

on to your grandchildren, don't saddle the Next Generation, but now

we have? We have saddled future generations with a lot of debt. It

has quietly gone out of the window, there two reasons. Brexit will be

the overwhelming issue of the next Government, whoever it is. The

deficit has come down quite substantially. Even in this

manifesto, John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor, is insisting that

everything is carefully costed and there is a promise they will try to

balance the current budget within five years. They are at least in

their language still talking about reducing the budget deficit and not

adding to the public debt. In this sense, it is an extraordinarily

conventional politician, you know, he is. And the Labour Party, the

Labour governments have been far more fiscally Conservative than the

Conservative governments. I'm not sure I agree with that. Neither

party seems nearly as scared of nationalisation this time around,

whether it is talk of the railways, Royal Mail, or in Theresa May's

case, a cap on energy fees. There is intervention either side now, right?

We have had the wrist massive state intervention in our economy in our

history. We found 1000 billion pounds to bailout the banking system

overnight. That was a state intervention. The state is currently

backing all of the world's big banks, with government guarantees,

with easy money at low interest rates. I wonder if Labour has read

the mood of the nation right. Actually we are prepared for more

state intervention, certainly the new generation want more. Write

there are certainly areas where nobody can object to the principle,

the state-owned railway. This has come up before. I do think the

general direction of this manifesto, and sometimes I have to say the

general direction of the Tory government and the Mrs May, has been

one in which they talk up an industrial strategy and more

intervention in the labour market, this manifesto is replacing 20 new

workers' rights, it is suggesting we move British labour Lord Ahmad give

more by continental European law, in which it is harder to fire people --

British labour law more like Continental. Individual parts of

this will be very popular, the rail will be popular, it sounds popular

to say, let's get rid of zero hours contracts. But the lesson that we

did learn in the 60s, 70s and 80s is that excessive state ownership can

be bad for the economy and excessive regulation of the labour market,

which we have seen in continental Europe, can ride up unemployment.

This is not a state market issue. If the economy were thriving and the

banks were servants of the economy and not masters of the economy, if

the finance sector hadn't wrecked the economy, the private sector

would be very much bigger than a share of the whole economy. What

happens when the private sector shrinks, as it has done over the

last ten years, not recovered, is that the state becomes a bigger part

of the cake. The point that all politicians should take on board is

that to make the cake bigger should be the key aim. Because of how thick

the IFS is, the fixation on this part of the economy,... When you are

talking about rising Corporation Tax levels, you know, the implication

blog determines you are going to make it possibly less attractive at

a time of Brexit for people to come in. There is no correlation between

rising Corporation Tax and increased or lower investment. In fact, we

have a really big problem with very low investment by our... I wouldn't

necessarily agree. The reason why many countries have cut Corporation

Tax rate is because it is a good way of attracting foreign investment,

and it has worked in this country, we have had high foreign investment.

It is a more general thing, if you are going to use a system where you

say, we are going to regulate the amount of pay that companies

campaign and we are going to introduce requirements in companies,

you are interfering in the marketplace. Mrs May is trying to do

that, like all politicians you realise the public are very unhappy

with the 1% running away with all of the gains from this crisis and the

rest of us having to carry the burden, and that is the political

reality. A bigger role for the state is not going to produce a better

economy. But it saved the banks. I'll see you in the Green room later

and we can on! Thank you. Jeremy Corbyn promised today

the manifesto contained policies And perhaps it's hard

to argue with the sound Extra funding for the NHS,

financial provision for social care, equal rights for all workers

and free childcare. But of course, there's

a cost to all this first, and an implementation

of it all after. So what do voters make of what's

on offer, and do they believe Jereym Corbyn is the man they trust

to deliver it? Although Jeremy Corbyn didn't

officially set out his stall today, we got some pretty strong

indications of what he and his Renationalising rail

and Royal Mail services, Increasing the minimum wage,

as well as abolishing tuition fees. More cash for the NHS and more

cash for social care, According to polling,

all of them get pretty strong It's places like this, Watford,

that Jeremy Corbyn and Labour need their manifesto

to have maximum impact. It was Labour until 2010, when it

went over to the Conservatives. But if Jeremy Corbyn wants

to be Prime Minister, he more or less has to retake

seats like this. Do those sorts of policies

sound attractive to you? I mean, I've got an 18-year-old

who's thinking of going to university, so the fee

element is brilliant. Utilities, as a parent as well,

we have to look at bills and stuff. I mean, I used to travel to London

as well and it's a nightmare. If they had those policies,

I would vote for them. And that would be enough

to change your mind? At the moment, you know,

who do I vote for? I worked for the railway for 32

years, so I'd definitely like to see Would you vote for a party that

gave you those policies, But I'm loathe to say what I really

think at the minute. Theresa May has got some charisma,

where you feel like if she says she's going to do something,

that she will do it. Although I'm a great

believer in Labour policy, Although by no means

a scientific survey, the attitudes we found in Watford

are backed up by polling, about how people decide

who to vote for. For a lot of people,

it's not about specific policies. So a lot of people want education

in this country to improve, but they won't really be interested

in how the parties go about that. A lot of people want the health

service to get better, but the minutiae of the detail

about health service policy And they want a strong

economy that is growing, but they are not really interested

in how the parties go about that. And so it comes down

to who they trust, who they think can be effective, and who they think

can be a strong leader, and that is where Labour is behind

at the moment and needs to improve. Although of course important,

manifestos on their own, it seems, The temptation is always to find

a name for a political philosophy. Are we looking at a Bennite vision,

the ghost of Kinnock, It is irrepressible -

the urge to box something up, place it, describe it

with what you know? So instead of fighting

it, we gave in to it. We've come up with this - our grid -

to describe where our pundits think. Where Corbyn sits amongst

other Labour leaders. On the left, we have Michael Foot -

1983's manifesto. In the middle, we have Ed Miliband

from 2015. And we have style at the top and

substance here. Stephen Bush is Special

Correspondent for the New Statesman. And Faiza Shaheen, Director

of the Thinktank Class. I am going to give you a rosette

each. Magnetic. This has Jeremy Corbyn on it. Can you give a sense

and you can shift these around, where you place Jeremy Corbyn?

Substance and style and left and right, in terms of the manifesto

draft we have seen so far. This is really tricky because it is about

context, the context in which we have seen this manifesto today and

we know that we have nurses going to food bags and young people in debt,

consumer debt is rising. A bunch of problems. A lot of stuff in the

manifesto looks sensible. So I have a problem with this. I am really

struggling. You can shift the middle if that is what you are saying.

Sorry, yes. I'm going to put it here. Maybe I can move it around in

the end. It has substance and style and it is to the left, but each of

these leaders, you have to understand in the context of the

situation. To the left of Ed Miliband but not as far left as some

people have said, in between Michael Foot and Ed Miliband? Yes, fair

enough, he goes further on some things. Congratulations on the money

that you have spent on this! Saving the licence fee payer money. Michael

Foot, I think, should be a little bit further down and to the right

because I think Jeremy Corbyn is intrinsically to the left of Michael

Foot. He was in the Labour government for many years. You have

got your own rosette, is yours. Ed Miliband deserves to be squeezed in

the middle. He was a bit more to the left. And Tony Blair, you have put

on the extreme right. He was not if you look at a lot of the things he

did, people on the left should be proud of them but they are not for

some reason. So a bit further to the left. Everyone has moved to the

left? I am tempted but Jeremy Corbyn here. It will not stick. Overdue. I

am also going to move at and Tony around. I am going to move Ed a bit.

Imagine for a moment Jeremy Corbyn was saying, I am going to declare

everyone in the Metropolitan Police is racist. We would go, is he a

Communist? But Tony Blair did that. If he would increase the statutory

form for how much people are paid by 100%, we would say that is radical,

but Tony Blair did that. Jeremy Corbyn said, I am going to make

every museum and art gallery free, we would say, who is this man? But

Tony Blair did that. In many ways, the style axis is the most

important. So Jeremy is out to the left in terms of style and Ed in

between. Style to substance, so he has less substance? They are all

substantial documents, but Jeremy Corbyn is running on a posture of

left-wing politics whereas Tony Blair's priority was to reassure the

middle classes, aspirational working-class people, who did not

usually vote Labour. And if you look at the tone of all former

manifestos, they are a lot closer together -- four manifestos. That is

where Jeremy Corbyn fails, Tony Blair got people voting Labour that

had never voted Labour in the past. In the manifesto today, it does not

appeal. Even though there is a poll from the Daily Mirror tonight that

these different policies people quite like individually, adding them

together, they do not. And that is where Jeremy Corbyn should not be

there, he should be much further to the left and may be less substance.

I do not think that is to do with the policies. That is to do with

other things. One of the things in the discussion before was about the

credibility of those policies and whether they have the money to back

it up. That complicates this. Ed Miliband probably would have wanted

to go this left but did not because they bought into, you can only spend

as much as you have and they would not admit to any borrowing. There

has been a brake on that in the late manifesto today. A bit of a break!

We have not seen... If what they are saying is right and it goes down to

leadership and capability in terms of who the leader is, none of the

policies even matter. We're not at that point? No, people see things

through the policies and Jeremy Corbyn is against somebody who's

manifesto is, trust me, it will be OK. This could break the narrative

of the election, do you think? What matters is if they can turn people

around and if you put trust Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, and people

see the policies through the Prism of the leader. That is what this

chart reveals. If we had a focus group, it would put Tony Blair in

the middle, Ed to the left a little bit and most people would not know

who Michael Foot was, and they would say Jeremy Corbyn is a bit to my

left as well. But really, it is about whether the leader is

reassuring people. Is there anything Theresa May has taken from today

last night's manifesto she will take? If you had but Theresa May in

front of a computer and said, would you like to write the Labour

manifesto to your maximum benefit, she would have written 90% of this.

It plays into her playbook. She also took a policy of Ed Miliband two

years ago. In a manifesto of this month, there will be things that

sound quite good, I have read all 45 pages and there were things that

sound OK. Adding the policies together, it plays into Conservative

hands. She is framing the selection on two things, Brexit, with three

pages on that which says nothing, and the presidential contest between

her and Jeremy Corbyn. In the last week of campaign, I will tell you

right now, it will be pitching herself again Jeremy Corbyn to say,

who do you think will negotiate best in Brussels? They have gone off that

a bit but they will return to that. I am glad you brought Theresa May,

it is strange to do this exercise just comparing Labour with Labour,

we should compare Labour with what the Conservatives want to do. We

have not heard much about what they will do on schools and the NHS, lots

of these issues that Corbyn has listed in these documents. It is

about comparing what it is, you are right they want to focus on Brexit

and leadership. You want us to come back next week! The reason why we

are comparing Labour in 2015, Labour got 9 million votes and the Tories

11 million. There is nothing any of these rosettes of that those two

million people they need to move over to suggest they are any better

than Ed. Thank you very much indeed. But before we go, we were wondering

whether you could give us a hand? We've noticed that there are certain

politicians that appear to be being kept off the

airwaves at the moment. Newsnight has sent John Sweeney

in pursuit of one of them - the Environment Secretary,

Andrea Leadsom. She's evaded him so far,

apart from this cryptic tweet. If anyone knows where these woods

are, do let us know. Thing is turning more unsettled from

the South through the day today and it will turn