11/05/2017 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Emily Maitlis.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles