21/05/2017 Sunday Politics East Midlands


Andrew Neil and Marie Ashby with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew is joined by David Gauke and Peter Dowd.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 21/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday Morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.


Labour attacks Conservative plans for social care and to means-test


So can Jeremy Corbyn eat into the Tory lead


Theresa May says her party's manifesto is all about fairness.


We'll be speaking to a Conservative cabinet minister about the plans.


The polls have always shown healthy leads for the Conservatives.


But, now we've seen the manifestos, is Labour narrowing the gap?


In the East Midlands, what's in it for us?


We'll be looking at what the manifestos mean for our region.


And is it time for an ethnic quota in Parliament to give more


And with me - as always - the best and the brightest political


panel in the business: Sam Coates, Isabel Oakeshott


and Steve Richards - they'll be tweeting throughout


the programme, and you can get involved by using


Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says pensioners will be up to ?330 a year


worse off under plans outlined in the Conservative manifesto.


The Work Pensions Secretary Damian Green has said his party will not


rethink their plans to fund social care in England. Under the plans in


the Conservative manifesto, nobody with assets of less than ?100,000,


would have to pay for care. Labour has attacked the proposal, and John


McDonnell, Labour's Shadow Chancellor, said this morning that


there needs to be more cross-party consensus.


That's why we supported Dilnot, but we also supported


Because we've got to have something sustainable over generations,


so that's why we've said to the Conservative Party,


Let's go back to that cross-party approach that actually


I just feel we've all been let down by what's come


Sam, is Labour beginning to get their argument across? What we had


last week was bluntly what felt like not very Lynton Crosby approved


Conservative manifesto. What I mean by that is that it looks like there


are things that will cause political difficulties for the party over this


campaign. I've been talking to MPs and ministers who acknowledge that


the social care plan is coming up on the doorstep. It has cut through


very quickly, and it is worrying and deterring some voters. Not just


pensioners, that people who are looking to inherit in the future.


They are all asking how much they could lose that they wouldn't have


lost before. A difficult question for the party to answer, given that


they don't want to give too much away now. Was this a mistake, or a


sign of the Conservatives' confidence? It has the hallmarks of


something that has been cobbled together in a very unnaturally short


time frame for putting a manifesto together. We have had mixed messages


from the Tory MPs who have been out on the airwaves this morning as to


whether they will consult on it whether it is just a starting point.


That said, there is still three weeks to go, and most of the Tory


party this morning feel this is a little light turbulence rather than


anything that leaves the destination of victory in doubt. It it flips the


normal politics. The Tories are going to make people who have a


reasonable amount of assets pay for their social care. What is wrong


with that? First, total credit for them for not pretending that all


this can be done by magic, which is what normally happens in an


election. The party will say, we will review this for the 95th time


in the following Parliament, so they have no mandate to do anything and


so do not do anything. It is courageous to do it. It is


electorally risky, for the reasons that you suggest, that they pass the


target their own natural supporter. And there is a sense that this is


rushed through, in the frenzy to get it done in time. I think the ending


of the pooling of risk and putting the entire burden on in inverted


commas the victim, because you cannot insure Fritz, is against the


spirit of a lot of the rest of the manifesto, and will give them huge


problems if they try to implement it in the next Parliament. Let's have a


look at the polls. Nearly five weeks ago, on Tuesday the 18th of April,


Theresa May called the election. At that point, this was the median


average of the recent polls. The Conservatives had an 18 point lead


over Labour on 25%. Ukip and the Liberal Democrats were both on 18%.


A draft of Labour's manifesto was leaked to the press. In the


intervening weeks, support for the Conservatives and Labour had


increased, that it had decreased for the Lib Dems and Ukip. Last Tuesday


came the launch of the official Labour manifesto. By that time,


Labour support had gone up by another 2%. The Lib Dems and Ukip


had slipped back slightly. Later in the week came the manifestos from


the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. This morning, for more polls. This


is how the parties currently stand on average. Labour are now on 34%,


up 4% since the launch of their manifesto. The Conservatives are


down two points since last Tuesday. Ukip and the Lib Dems are both


unchanged on 8% and 5%. You can find this poll tracker on the BBC


website, see how it was calculated, and see the results of national


polls over the last two years. So Isabel, is this the Tories' wobbly


weekend or the start of the narrowing? This is still an


extremely healthy lead for the Tories. At the start of this


campaign, most commentators expected to things to happen. First, the Lib


Dems would have a significant surge. That hasn't happened. Second, Labour


would crash and plummet. Instead they are in the health of the low


30s. I wonder if that tells you something about the tribal nature of


the Labour vote, and the continuing problems with the Tory brand. I


would say that a lot of Tory MPs wouldn't be too unhappy if Labour's


result isn't quite as bad as has been anticipated. They don't want


Corbyn to go anywhere. If the latest polls were to be the result on June


the 8th, Mr Corbyn may not be in a rush to go anywhere. I still think


it depends on the number of seats. If there is a landslide win, I


think, one way or another, he will not stay. If it is much narrower, he


has grounds for arguing he has done better than anticipated. The polls


are very interesting. People compare this with 83. In 83, the Tory lead


widened consistently throughout the campaign. There was the SDP -


Liberal Alliance doing well in the polls. Here, the Lib Dems don't seem


to be doing that. So the parallels with 83 don't really stack up. But


let's see what happens. Still early days for the a lot of people are


saying this is the result of the social care policy. We don't really


know that. How do you beat them? In the last week or so, there's been


the decision by some to hold their nose and vote Labour, who haven't


done so before. Probably the biggest thing in this election is how the


Right has reunited behind Theresa May. That figure for Ukip is


incredibly small. She has brought those Ukip voters behind her, and


that could be the decisive factor in many seats, rather than the Labour


share of the boat picking up a bit or down a bit, depending on how


turbulent the Tory manifesto makes it. Thank you for that.


We've finally got our hands on the manifestos of the two main


parties and, for once, voters can hardly complain that


So, just how big is the choice on offer to the public?


Since the Liberal Democrats and SNP have ruled out


coalitions after June 8th, Adam Fleming compares the Labour


Welcome to the BBC's election centre.


Four minutes from now, when Big Ben strikes 10.00,


we can legally reveal the contents of this, our exit poll.


18 days to go, and the BBC's election night studio


This is where David Dimbleby will sit, although there is no chair yet.


The parties' policies are now the finished product.


In Bradford, Jeremy Corbyn vowed a bigger state,


the end of austerity, no more tuition fees.


The Tory campaign, by contrast, is built on one word - fear.


Down the road in Halifax, Theresa May kept a promise to get


immigration down to the tens of thousands, and talked


of leadership and tough choices in uncertain times.


Strengthen my hand as I fight for Britain, and stand with me


And, with confidence in ourselves and a unity


of purpose in our country, let us go forward together.


Let's look at the Labour and Conservative


On tax, Labour would introduce a 50p rate for top earners.


The Conservatives ditched their triple lock, giving them


freedom to put up income tax and national insurance,


although they want to keep the overall tax burden the same.


Labour offered a major overhaul of the country's wiring,


with a pledge to renationalise infrastructure, like power,


The Conservatives said that would cost a fortune,


but provided few details for the cost of their policies.


Labour have simply become a shambles, and, as yesterday's


manifesto showed, their numbers simply do not add up.


What have they got planned for health and social care?


The Conservatives offered more cash for the NHS,


reaching an extra ?8 billion a year by the end of the parliament.


Labour promised an extra ?30 billion over the course of the same period,


plus free hospital parking and more pay for staff.


The Conservatives would increase the value of assets you could


protect from the cost of social care to ?100,000, but your home would be


added to the assessment of your wealth,


There was a focus on one group of voters in particular


Labour would keep the triple lock, which guarantees that pensions go up


The Tories would keep the increase in line


with inflation or earnings, a double lock.


The Conservatives would end of winter fuel payments


for the richest, although we don't know exactly who that would be,


This is a savage attack on vulnerable pensioners,


particularly those who are just about managing.


It is disgraceful, and we are calling upon the Conservative Party


When it comes to leaving the European Union, Labour say


they'd sweep away the government's negotiating strategy,


secure a better deal and straightaway guaranteed the rights


The Tories say a big majority would remove political uncertainty


Jeremy Vine's due here in two and a half weeks.


I'm joined now by David Gauke, who is Chief Secretary to the Treasury.


Welcome back to the programme. The Tories once promised a cap on social


care costs. Why have you abandoned that? We've looked at it, and there


are couple of proposals with the Dilnot proposal. Much of the benefit


would go to those inheriting larger estates. The second point was it was


hoped that a cap would stimulate the larger insurance products that would


fill the gap, but there is no sign that those products are emerging.


Without a cap, you will not get one. We have come forward with a new


proposal which we think is fairer, provide more money for social care,


which is very important and is one of the big issues we face as a


country. It is right that we face those big issues. Social care is


one, getting a good Brexit deal is another. This demonstrates that


Theresa May has an ambition to lead a government that addresses those


big long-term issues. Looking at social care. If you have assets,


including your home, of over ?100,000, you have to pay for all


your social care costs. Is that fair? It is right that for the


services that are provided to you, that that is paid out of your


assets, subject to two really important qualifications. First, you


shouldn't have your entire estate wiped out. At the moment, if you are


in residential care, it can be wiped out ?223,000. If you are in


domiciliary care, it can be out to ?23,000, plus you're domiciliary.


Nobody should be forced to sell their house in their lifetime if


they or their spouse needs long-term care. Again, we have protected that


in the proposals we set out. But the state will basically take a


chunk of your house when you die and they sell. In an essence it is a


stealth inheritance tax on everything above ?100,000. But we


have those two important protections. I am including that. It


is a stealth inheritance tax. We have to face up to the fact that


there are significant costs that we face as a country in terms of health


and social careful. Traditionally, politicians don't address those


issues, particularly during election campaigns. I think it is too Theresa


May's credit that we are being straightforward with the British


people and saying that we face this long-term challenge. Our manifesto


was about the big challenges that we face, one of which was


intergenerational fairness and one of which was delivering a strong


economy and making sure that we can do that. But in the end, someone is


going to have to pay for this. It is going to have to be a balance


between the general taxpayer and those receiving the services. We


think we have struck the right balance with this proposal. But it


is entirely on the individual. People watching this programme, if


they have a fair amount of assets, not massive, including the home,


they will need to pay for everything themselves until their assets are


reduced to ?100,000. It is not a balance, you're putting everything


on the original two individual. At the moment, for those in residential


care, they have to pay everything until 20 3000. -- everything on the


individual. But now they will face more. Those in individual care are


seeing their protection going up by four times as much, so that is


eliminating unfairness. Why should those in residential care be in a


worse position than those receiving domiciliary care? But as I say, that


money has to come from somewhere and we are sitting at a proper plan for


it. While also made the point that we are more likely to be able to


have a properly functioning social care market if we have a strong


economy, and to have a strong economy we need to deliver a good


deal on Brexit and I think Theresa May is capable of doing that. You


have said that before. But if you have a heart attack in old age, the


NHS will take care of you. If you have dementia, you now have to pay


for the care of yourself. Is that they are? It is already the case


that if you have long-term care costs come up as I say, if you are


in residential care you pay for all of it until the last ?23,000, but if


you are in domiciliary care, excluding your housing assets, but


all of your other assets get used up until you are down to ?23,000 a


year. And I think it is right at this point that a party that aspires


to run this country for the long-term, to address the long-term


challenges we have is a country, for us to be clear that we need to


deliver this. Because if it is not paid for it this way, if it goes and


falls on the general taxpayer, the people who feel hard pressed by the


amount of income tax and VAT they pay, frankly we have to say to them,


those taxes will go up if we do not address it. But they might go up


anyway. The average house price in your part of the country is just shy


of ?430,000, so if you told your own constituents that they might have to


spend ?300,000 of their assets on social care before the state steps


in to help...? As I said earlier, nobody will be forced to pay during


their lifetime. Nobody will be forced to sell their houses. We are


providing that protection because of the third premium. Which makes it a


kind of death tax, doesn't it? Which is what you use to rail against.


What it is people paying for the services they have paid out of their


assets. But with that very important protection that nobody is going to


be wiped out in the way that has happened up until now, down to the


last three years. But when Labour propose this, George Osborne called


it a death tax and you are now proposing a stealth death tax


inheritance tax. Labour's proposals were very different. It is the same


effect. Labour's were hitting everyone with an inheritance tax. We


are saying that there are -- that there is a state contribution but


the public receiving the services will have to pay for it out of


assets, which have grown substantially. And which they might


now lose to social care. But I would say that people in Hertfordshire pay


a lot in income tracks, national insurance and VAT, and this is my


bet is going to have to come from somewhere. Well, they are now going


to pay a lot of tax and pay for social care. Turning to immigration,


you promised to get net migration down to 100,020 ten. You failed. You


promised again in 2015 and you are feeling again. Why should voters


trust you a third time? It is very clear that only the Conservative


Party has an ambition to control immigration and to bring it down. An


ambition you have failed to deliver. There are, of course, factors that


come into play. For example a couple of years ago we were going through a


period when the UK was creating huge numbers of jobs but none of our


European neighbours were doing anything like it. Not surprisingly,


that feeds through into the immigration numbers that we see. But


it is right that we have that ambition because I do not believe it


is sustainable to have hundreds of thousands net migration, you're


after year after year, and only Theresa May of the Conservative


Party is willing to address that. It has gone from being a target to an


ambition, and I am pretty sure in a couple of years it will become an


untimed aspiration. Is net migration now higher or lower than when you


came to power in 2010? I think it is higher at the moment. Let's look at


the figures. And there they are. You are right, it is higher, so after


six years in power, promising to get it down to 100,000, it is higher. So


if that is an ambition and you have not succeeded. We have to accept


that there are a number of factors. It continues to be the case that the


UK economy is growing and creating a lot of jobs, which is undoubtedly


drawing people. But you made the promise on the basis that would not


happen? We are certainly outperforming other countries in a


way that we could not have predicted in 2010. That is one of the factors.


But if you look at a lot of the steps that we have taken over the


course of the last seven years, dealing with bogus students, for


example, tightening up a lot of the rules. You can say all that but it


has made no difference to the headline figure. Clearly it would


have gone up by much more and we not taken the steps. But as I say, we


cannot for ever, it seems to me, have net migration numbers in the


hundreds of thousands. If we get that good Brexit deal, one of the


things we can do is tighten up in terms of access here. You say that


but you have always had control of non-EU migration. You cannot blame


the EU for that. You control immigration from outside the EU.


Have you ever managed to get even that below 100,000? Well, no doubt


you will present the numbers now. You haven't. You have got down a bit


from 2010, I will give you that, but even non-EU migration is still a lot


more than 100000 and that is the thing you control. It is 164,000 on


the latest figures. There is no point in saying to the voters that


when we get control of the EU migration you will get it down when


the bit you have control over, you have failed to get that down into


the tens of thousands. The general trend has gone up. Non-EU migration


we have brought down over the last few years. Not by much, not by


anywhere near your 100,000 target. But we clearly have more tools


available to us, following Brexit. At this rate it will be around 2030


before you get non-EU migration down to 100,000. We clearly have more


tools available to us and I return to the point I made. In the last six


or seven years, particularly the last four or five, we have seen the


UK jobs market growing substantially. It is extraordinary


how many more jobs we have. So you'll only promised the migration


target because you did not think you were going to run the economy well?


That is what you are telling me. I don't think anyone expected us to


create quite a number of jobs that we have done over the last six or


seven years. At the time when other European countries have not been.


George Osborne says your target is economically illiterate. I disagree


with George on that. He is my old boss but I disagree with him on that


point. And the reason I say that is looking at the economics and the


wider social impact, I don't think it is sustainable for us to have


hundreds of thousands, year after year after year. Let me ask you one


other thing because you are the chief secretary. Your promising that


spending on health will be ?8 billion higher in five use time than


it is now. How do you pay for that? From a strong economy, two years ago


we had a similar conversation because at that point we said that


we would increase spending by ?8 billion. And we are more than on


track to deliver it, because it is a priority area for us. Where will the


money come from? It will be a priority area for us. We will find


the money. So you have not been able to show us a revenue line where this


?8 billion will come from. We have a record of making promises to spend


more on the NHS and delivering. One thing I would say is that the only


way you can spend more money on the NHS is if you have a strong economy,


and the biggest risk... But that is true of anything. I am trying to


find out where the ?8 billion come from, where will it come from? Know


you were saying that perhaps you might increase taxes, ticking off


the lock, so people are right to be suspicious. But you will not tell us


where the ?8 billion will come from. Andrew, a strong economy is key to


delivering more NHS money. That does not tell us where the money is


coming from. The biggest risk to a strong economy would be a bad


Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn would deliver. And we have a record of


putting more money into the NHS. I think that past performance we can


take forward. Thank you for joining us.


So, the Conservatives have been taking a bit of flak


But Conservative big guns have been out and about this morning taking


Here's Boris Johnson on ITV's Peston programme earlier today:


What we're trying to do is to address what I think


everybody, all serious demographers acknowledge will be the massive


problem of the cost of social care long-term.


This is a responsible, grown-up, conservative approach,


trying to deal with a long-term problem in a way that is equitable,


allows people to pass on a very substantial sum,


still, to their kids, and takes away the fear


Joining me now from Liverpool is Labour's Shadow Chief Secretary


Petered out, welcome to the programme. Let's start with social


care. The Tories are saying that if you have ?100,000 or more in assets,


you should pay for your own social care. What is wrong with that? Well,


I think the issue at the end of the day is the question of fairness. Is


it fair? And what we're trying to do is to get to a situation where we


have, for example, the Dilnot report, which identified that you


actually have cap on your spending on social care. We are trying to get


to a position where it is a reasonable and fair approach to


expenditure. But you will know that a lot of people, particularly in the


south of country, London and the south-east, and the adjacent areas


around it, they have benefited from huge house price inflation. They


have seen their homes go up in value, if and when they sell, they


are not taxed on that increase. Why should these people not pay for


their own social care if they have the assets to do so? They will be


paying for some of their social care but you cannot take social care and


health care separately. It has to be an integrated approach. So for


example if you do have dementia, you're more likely to be in an


elderly person's home for longer and you most probably have been in care


for a longer period of time. On the other hand, you might have, if you


have had a stroke, there may be continuing care needs paid for by


the NHS. So at the end of the date it is trying to get a reasonable


balance and just to pluck a figure of ?100,000 out of thin air is not


sensible. You will have heard me say about David Gold that the house


prices in his area, about 450,000 or so, not quite that, and that people


may have to spend quite a lot of that on social care to get down to


?100,000. But in your area, the average house price is only


?149,000, so your people would not have to pay anything like as much


before they hit the ?100,000 minimum. I hesitate to say that but


is that not almost a socialist approach to social care that if you


are in the affluent Home Counties with a big asset, you pay more, and


if you are in an area that is not so affluent and your house is not worth


very much, you pay a lot less. What is wrong with that principle? I


think the problem I am trying to get to is this issue about equity across


the piece. At the end of the day, what we want is a system whereby it


is capped at a particular level, and the Dilnot report, after much


examination, said we should have a cap on care costs at ?72,000. The


Conservatives decided to ditch that and come up with another policy


which by all accounts seems to be even more Draconian. At the end of


the day it is trying to get social care and an NHS care in a much more


fluid way. We had offered the Conservatives to have a bipartisan


approach to this. David just said that this is a long term. You do not


pick a figure out of thin air and use that as a long-term strategy.


The Conservatives are now saying they will increase health spending


over the next five years in real terms. You will increase health


spending. In what way is your approach to health spending better


than the Tories' now? We are contributing an extra 7.2 billion to


the NHS and social care over the next few years. But you just don't


put money into the NHS or social care. It has to be an integrated


approach to social and health care. What we've got is just more of the


same. What we don't want to do is just say, we ring-fenced an out for


here or there. What you have to do is try to get that... Let me ask you


again. In terms of the amount of resource that is going to be devoted


in the next five years, and resource does matter for the NHS, in what way


are your plans different now from the Conservative plans? The key is


how you use that resource. By just putting money in, you've got to say,


if we are going to put that money on, how do we use it? As somebody


who has worked in social care for 40 years, you have to have a different


approach to how you use that money. The money we are putting in, 7.7,


may be similar in cash terms to what the Tories claim they are putting


in, but it's not how much you put in per se, it is how you use it. You


are going to get rid of car parking charges in hospital, and you are


going to increase pay by taking the cap on pay off. So it doesn't


necessarily follow that the money, under your way of doing it, will


follow the front line. What you need in the NHS is a system that is


capable of dealing with the patience you have. What we have now is on at


five Asian of the NHS. Staff leaving, not being paid properly. So


pay and the NHS go hand in hand. Let's move onto another area of


policy where there is some confusion. Who speaks for the Labour


Party on nuclear weapons? Is it Emily Thornbury, or Nia Griffith,


defence spokesperson? The Labour manifesto. It is clear. We are


committed to the nuclear deterrent, and that is the definitive... Is it?


Emily Thornbury said that Trident could be scrapped in the defence


review you would have immediately after taking power. On LBC on Friday


night. She didn't, actually. I listened to that. What she actually


said is, as part of a Labour government coming in, a new


government, there is always a defence review. But not the concept


of Trident in its substance. She said there would be a review in


terms of, and this is in our manifesto. When you reduce


something, you review how it is operated. The review could scrap


Trident. It won't scrap Trident. The review is in the context of how you


protect it from cyber attacks. This will issue was seized upon that she


was saying that we would have another review of Trident or Labour


would ditch it. That is nonsense. You will have seen some reports that


MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn in the early 90s because of his


links to Irish republicanism. This has caused some people, his links to


the IRA and Sinn Fein, it has caused some concern. Could you just listen


to this clip and react. Do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn


all bombing. But do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn what was done


with the British Army as well as both sides as well. What happened in


Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well. Do you distinguish between


state forces, what the British Army did and the IRA? Well, in a sense,


the treatment of IRA prisoners which made them into virtual political


prisoners suggested that the British government and the state saw some


kind of almost equivalent in it. My point is that the whole violence if


you was terrible, was appalling, and came out of a process that had been


allowed to fester in Northern Ireland for a very long time. That


was from about two years ago. Can you explain why the Leader of the


Labour Party, Her Majesty 's opposition, the man who would be our


next Prime Minister, finds it so hard to condemn IRA arming? I think


it has to be within the context that Jeremy Corbyn for many years trying


to move the peace protest... Process along. So why wouldn't you condemn


IRA bombing? Again, that was an issue, a traumatic event in Irish -


British relations that went on for 30 years. It is a complicated


matter. Bombing is not that complicated. If you are a man of


peace, surely you would condemn the bomb and the bullet? Let me say


this, I condemn the bomb and the bullet. Why can't your leader? You


would have to ask Jeremy Corbyn, but that is in the context of what he


was trying to do over a 25 year period to move the priest process


along. Thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. In the East Midlands...


in Scotland and Wales. The election hits top gear


as the parties target those vital I think with Jeremy Corbyn, all we


will get is a government of chaos. I actually think the nasty party


is back, and I think that is the revelation of this week,


the revelation of the And the frustrations of a young


generation of black voters who want their voices heard


in politics. There is a causal effect


between the lack of black politicians and the lack


of engagement of young They are looking to the political


system and they cannot see anybody like them,


so how can we expect them to involve My guests this week,


Leon Spence is a Conservative Until very recently he was a Labour


councillor, but left the party in protest over the direction


it was taking under Jeremy Corbyn. And Professor Cecile Wright


is a Labour activist and founder of the Black Labour Network,


and a strong supporter We have a letter here that was sent


to postal voters in Gedling, but on this letter, there is no mention of


Conservative. It is from right operable, Theresa May, by Minister.


It does not mention conservatives. It does not mention conservatives.


Is this a toxic brand or something? I do not think so. What it is is a


measure of how popular the Prime Minister is at the moment. Not how


popular the party is? I think we have seen local election results


recently throughout the country for recently throughout the country for


the Conservative Party, but you go out knocking on doors, it certainly


ain't huge swathes of the country, and you see Theresa May is popular.


An example, I will quote my mother who has been a Labour voter all her


life, and she says Theresa May is somebody that she likes, she trusts.


What about the weekend wobble? You have seen the polls. It is a long


election campaign, and when you see the polling at this period of time,


you see a narrowing of the gap in polling as we approach for weeks


out. I personally would suggest that you will see an increase as we move


Conservatives. You think this move Conservatives. You think this move


is happening across the board? I would like to cooperate the


receiving of male with the not mincing... I have directed mail from


Theresa May and had I not known she was leader of the Conservative


Party, I would not known in this. I would say that what I'm getting on


the ground, particularly in Derby is that people are impressed by the


Labour Party's manifesto, impressed by the policies that are in there,


impressed by the fact that we are focusing on providing policies that


are there for the many and not the few. So I am seeing a shift, a


positive shift to the Labour Party. We will talk more about this later.


The pace of the election moved up a gear this week as the main parties


And with our region containing some vital marginal seats,


top politicians were despatched here to rustle up votes.


But what do those manifestos have to offer us here


Our political editor Tony Roe's been taking a closer look.


On the campaign trail for a fourth week in weather fair and foul.


Really foul for those Labour supporters in Derby,


but they were upbeat. Confident the polls do them now,


confident manifesto commitments will appeal.


The renationalisation of the railways, where you then


have a long-term investment programme in the railway industry.


Places like Derby, not only will we increase their connectivity,


but in addition to that, Bombardier will be one


of the companies that will be providing a lot of the railway stock


that we will need in that new system.


So, for Derby, I think, this manifesto, you could almost have


On the afternoon of his party's manifesto launch,


the Conservative Party chairman was in Labour marginal Gedling


We have got to find ways to spend money responsibly,


and it is no good promising things if you can't do it...


There is no specific mention of the electrification


of Midland Mainline in the Tory manifesto this time, but a more


general commitment to work through an existing programme.


We are seeing vast investment in the East Midlands,


so if we look at what has happened with the Nottingham station,


the refurbishment of the Nottingham station,


the work that is going to take place as far as Derby


station is concerned, with the reconfiguration


of the station, those are all very important things.


It has been said that part of the Conservative manifesto has


shifted so far to the middle ground that some of the ideas in it


have come from this man, pounding the streets


I think the real thing is always better than the invitation,


and I think that it is true that Theresa May has taken


a few of the ideas I had, but she has not copied them properly


I think the mask has slipped this week, because I think when people


see what the Tories are proposing for pensions, taking


the winter fuel allowance from 10 million of our pensioners,


Reducing the amount of care people get in their own homes,


a tax on dementia, I actually think the nasty party is back,


and I think that is the revelation of this week, the revelation


What this manifesto is, it is addressing the problems


for the United Kingdom in today's society.


It is also talking about the very important issue of our leaving


the European Union and making sure that Theresa May gets a strong


mandate, because I think that is very important.


In just over three weeks, there will be one of two people


It will either be Theresa May, or it will be Jeremy Corbyn.


I think with Jeremy Corbyn, all we will get is a Government of chaos.


Manifestos have given all parties something to attack in the last


Some politicians have even admitted they don't either.


What's going to stick are the headlines, the slogans,


but this time, we won't have anything carved in stone,


Well, last week we heard from the Lib Dems and the Green


Party in the studio, and we'll be hearing


from all of the parties in the run up to the election.


Margot Parker is an MEP for the party and she's with us now.


Margot Parker, where's your manifesto?


It is going to be delivered on Wednesday this week, so just a


couple of days. Are you going to tell us what is in it? Of course


not. Sandy Berger? Yes yes, but not indifference to France. Anything


that helps society be more cohesive. That is our angle. We are hearing


calls for an English parliament. Will that strike a chord in the East


Midlands? I think it might. I think people are fed up with the SNP in


Scotland and controlling Westminster with their questions instead of


getting on with the business, so I think people are fed up and saying,


well, let's have an English parliament that actually serves the


people of England. When he manifesto comes out, do expect a ride in the


opinion polls? At the moment you are pretty low down. I am hopeful,


absolutely. It is interesting to see the Tory party have taken many


policies from the 2050 manifesto of hours, so we have had some good


influence and that is to be applauded.


Leon Spence, John McDonnell in Tony's report saying


that the Labour manifesto could have been written for Derby,


which is very kind of them, but what he means is there'll be


investment in rail projects which will be good for the city,


This is a manifesto that could do well in parts of East Midlands. Ukip


have done a remarkable job in delivering their purpose. We are a


long-term party, my friend. They are very much achieving Brexit. We are


pretty critical pathway of delivering a strong, stable Brexit


for the Government. You have subsumed Ukip's policies. I do not


think so, but we have taken a lot of their purpose, which is to take a


stable Brexit/ that is rubbish. We have been made for the long haul. We


have had built up slowly over the years. Brexit was very important to


us to get something deliberate, it would free the country and allow us


to prosper and grow. But that will continue. Many people will be voting


Ukip. When they see our manifesto, they will more so. Cecile? Ukip was


always a single issue party and has now served its purpose. Now let's


focus on domestic policy. Our team is reporting that the Conservative


manifesto has not gone down well, particularly with older people.


Obviously all lot of talk this weekend is about social care and new


arrangements for homeowners that need care in old age. Do think


Labour will do well out of this? I hope so. Since 2010, the


Conservative coalition, then the Conservative Party have cut social


care by ?4.6 billion. So the situation we have with the crisis in


social care is because of the major cuts in this area, the Labour


manifesto has clearly stated how we will ensure that there is social


care, to ensure our elderly population live in dignity. So our


policy is not about dividing generations, not about pitting


beyond against the old and taking from the old and expecting them,


during a vulnerable time in their lives, to pay up. Does it not come


down to as Patrick McLoughlin said, how people see as a leader? You


would argue that Labour has a problem with Corbyn, whereas the


opposite may be the case. One of the things you have heard many times on


the doorstep is that we expect politicians to be more honest. I


think what we have seen with Theresa May in this manifesto is saying


there are challenges. We have a five-year period of time to deliver


Brexit, deliver some of the huge issues around social care, and we


need politicians to be honest. When it comes to things like the winter


fuel allowance, not a popular policy to remove... Possibly very damaging.


It is a nonsense to say in Scotland that they will be void of this. But


and only England will be put in this direction for that I mean you cannot


say it is colder in Scotland it was stupid. At least then time, lowering


Corporation tax, white is it's the Tory manifesto to do this? This is a


risky strategy. This, we need to grasp the nettle, people will suffer


all, that for a good... We know all, that for a good... We know


there are issues. Between 2014 and 2024, we know the number of


85-year-old is going to have increased by one third. I think we


do not know what is going to be happening in the next year, so we


need a strong, stable Brexit that is going to deliver the very best


possible. Not a coalition of chaos of all these minor Pollard bat


parties. You got hammered in the local elections, what can you do as


a party? But what can you do in the next 2.5 weeks to increase your


share of the vote? Get out there, do what we are doing. Once we announce


our manifesto, there are some good points in there, and from my own


field which is about quality, gender equality, I am hopeful that we will


see some sensible issues being discussed and hopefully that will


raise is in the polls. We are certainly working very hard. We have


great one in Leicestershire. Your great one in Leicestershire. Your


manifesto will be costed like the other parties? It will be. The


Labour Party manifesto has been costed. It is the Conservative Party


won that has not been costed. I think the issue that we have is


historically manifestos have not been costed because we have been


looking at five-year terms. It was Ken Clarke who said he'd is not even


never be costed. But you said never be costed. But you said


Theresa is honest and it Tory party is honest, so why are they not


costing the manifesto, why do they not cost what it is they are going


to do? What we have in any manifesto is aspirations. We do not know the


costs. Aspirations? All manifestos are aspirations? Thank you, mango,


for talking to us today. Next, is it time to bring


in quotas to make sure there are more politicians


from our black communities? In the East Midlands


there are no black MPs, One student at Nottingham


Trent University has been researching the problem


and the possible solutions. I've just finished my


third year undergraduate degree at Nottingham Trent


University studying politics and international relations,


and I took a closer look into how the lack


of Afro-Caribbean representation


affects young Afro-Caribbean The lack of black


politicians is having There are fewer black


politicians, fewer black people involving themselves within politics


and a general discontent The results from the last


election are staggering. It was found that 18%


of Afro-Caribbeans were not registered to vote, compared


with 7% of white people. From my own research,


it was found that 74% of people I interviewed


stated representation their decision to participate


within politics. This isn't just a matter


for the elections. My generation have been


talking about this for a Any issues that I have


regarding anything in my community, it's the older


generation of white gentlemen, privileged background that I have


to communicate with. So there is a lack of understanding


across the consensus of the issues that are really involved


in our community. Even the Westminster election


format, you find that not many of the black community


do participate in voting,


let alone wanting to take part in politics


So yeah, I just think it starts with education.


When you are a young age, obviously, you are


always watching TV, always looking up,


and if someone looks at you, for


example, if they have the same colour as your skin, you are


automatically you almost think you are kind of like them.


And obviously if you don't see anyone in Parliament or in


politics like that, who looks like you, then you kind of, you


distinguish yourself and you say, "Oh, that can't


One way that we can combat this is by having an


ethnic quota within Parliament so ethnic minorities have a specific


Political education needs to be on the agenda also, so young people


know who represents them, why they are represented and how they


Without this, we will have a generation of people


Cecile Wright, I know you have done a lot of work on this, and it is


almost the invisibility of black politicians. Why is that? It is a


huge issue. It is a issue that all parties should be concerned about.


The Labour Party is one of the most diverse parties in terms of


representation, at Parliamentary level and local council level.


Indeed, the party, within the party, we have policy to ensure this


diversity. I think with the snap election, somehow those policies


have been undermined in terms of the implementation. We have on the


National laxatives, which is the governing body for the party, a


representative for black and minority communities. The efficacy


of that role in the sense that that position is held by an MP. One needs


to be asking the question why they would hold a position on the


executive. The issue is perhaps the stakeholders that are there to


ensure there is diversity in some selection, it is not being


effectively undertaken are implemented. Cecile has that Labour


does wellingtons of diversity. Do think the Tory party has work to do


on it? I think all do. We are in a position now where if the polls are


to be believed, we could end up with more Conservative MPs than Labour


will do, than is eight great move forwards. We have seen a molester of


the three constituencies in Leicester, two of the constituencies


are being fought. Two young candidates are taking on very


difficulties to wing, but have a huge future in the party. Only 6% of


MPs from any ethnic background at the moment. In local councils, 4% at


background. Only 17% -- 17% from a background. Only 17% -- 17% from a


motor background registered to vote. If you do not see yourself are


presented in a political establishment. That is sending a


message. That is worrying in the East Midlands because that is what


we are focusing on. Across the East Midlands, we do not have a single


black politician, of African Caribbean background, and when you


think how many of the Parliamentary seats across East Midlands are


located in areas where there are high ethnic minority communities


constituencies, that is worrying. I think this should be a concern for


all parties, and particularly the major parties. It is a big social


issues sop to be better for society. Is it time for quotas? No,


absolutely not. Yesterday I went to the Leicester Afro-Caribbean Centre


where I spent most Saturday mornings, and I spoke to many people


in that centre and they are not politically disengaged. I'm sure


Cecile would say that they are absolutely fascinated and involved


in the issues that affect their lives. Exit, work, making sure they


have a decent life. I think there is a need for a structure which will


reverse the crisis, and I think it is a crisis that we face, with


respect to women and representations through the short lists... Introduce


that as well. I think we need all-black short lists. Thank you


very much indeed. With three weeks to go


to the election, we'll be taking a closer look at some


of our most important In the coming weeks we'll be


focusing on some of the election hotspots in the East Midlands


and hearing from all of the candidates, beginning


with the marginal seat Rob Pittam reports now


on the politicians looking There is a reason the big names have


been hitting Gedling. It is a Midlands marginal


that is a top target. Labour's Vernon Coaker has held


the seat for 20 years, winning with a majority of just


under 3000 in 2015. He is standing again,


but he will be pushed hard Five candidates are


standing here in total. I have taken up individual cases,


campaigned on local issues. And the coice here will be


that record of 20 years as against a Tory opportunist,


somebody who has just come We are actually going to put


more money into the NHS, We are looking after our


long-term care for the elderly. And I really think that people


are understanding that they do not want to risk the vote for anybody


else when they know the economy and our country is going


in the right direction. We are offering people in Gedling


a chance which could be their last chance to vote against Corbyn


and May's disastrous hard Brexit. A vote for the Liberal Democrats is


a vote to change Britain's future. Do not crash out of the single


market without a deal. We are your insurance policy


to guarantee a full Brexit and hold We will have sensible


controls on immigration, look for an English Parliament,


proportional representation We will protect the environment,


we will invest in clean, green energy, we will roll back


privatisation on the NHS, Young people, education should be


free, and protecting human rights, you will get the final


vote on Brexit. election whereever you are,


the deadline for registering And you can see a full list


of candidates standing in every seat in the country on the BBC's


online news pages. Just look for


bbc.co.uk/news/elections. That's it for now


from the East Midlands. My thanks to my guests,


Leon Spence and Cecile Wright. Time now to hand you


back to Andrew Neil. cancelled. And rent to own is still


our policy. Thank you very much, Tom Brake. Andrew, back to you.


So, two and half weeks to go till polling day,


let's take stock of the campaign so far and look ahead


Sam, Isabel and Steve are with me again.


Sam, Mrs May had made a great thing about the just about managing. Not


the poorest of the poor, but not really affluent people, who are


maybe OK but it's a bit of a struggle. What is in the manifesto


for them? There is something about the high profile items in the


manifesto. She said she wants to help those just above the poorest


level. But if you look at things like the winter fuel allowance,


which is going to be given only to the poorest. If you look at free


school meals for infants, those for the poorest are going to be kept,


but the rest will go. The social care plan, those who are renting or


in properties worth up to ?90,000, they are going to be treated, but


those in properties worth above that, 250,000, for example, will


have to pay. Which leads to the question - what is being done for


the just about managings? There is something, the personal allowance


that David Cameron promised in 2015, that they are not making a big deal


of that, because they cannot say by how much. So you are looking in tax


rises on the just about managings. Where will the tax rises come from.


We do not know, that there is the 40 million pounds gap for the Tories to


reach what they are pledging in their manifesto. We do not know how


that is going to be made up, more tax, or more borrowing? So that is


why the questions of the implications of removing the tax


lock are so potentially difficult for Tory MPs. The Labour manifesto


gives figures for the cost of certain policies and where the


revenue will come from. You can argue about the figures, but at


least we have the figures. The Tory manifesto is opaque on these


matters. That applies to both the manifestos. Looking at the Labour


manifesto on the way here this morning, when you look at the


section on care for the elderly, they simply say, there are various


ways in which the money for this can be raised. They are specific on


other things. They are, and we heard John McDonnell this morning being


very on that, and saying there is not a single ? in Tory manifesto. I


have only got to page 66. It is quite broad brush and they are very


open to challenge. For example, on the detail of a number of their


flagship things. There is no detail on their immigration policy. They


reiterate the ambition, but not how they are going to do that, without a


massive increase in resource for Borders officials. We are at a time


where average wages are lagging behind prices. And in work benefits


remain frozen. I would have thought that the just-about-managings are


people who are in work but they need some in work benefits to make life


tolerable and be able to pay bills. Doesn't she has to do more for them?


Maybe, but this whole manifesto was her inner circle saying, right, this


is our chance to express our... It partly reads like a sort of


philosophical essay at times. About the challenges, individualism


against collectivism. Some of it reads quite well and is quite


interesting, but in terms of its detail, Labour would never get away


with it. They wouldn't be allowed to be so vague about where taxes are


going to rise. We know there are going to be tax rises after the


election, but we don't know where they will be. 100%, there will be


tax rises. We know that they wanted a tax rise in the last budget, but


they couldn't get it through because of the 2015 manifesto. Labour do


offer a lot more detail. People could disagree with it, but there is


a lot more detail. More to get your teeth into. About capital gains tax


and the rises for better owners and so on. The SNP manifesto comes out


this week, and the Greens and Sinn Fein. We think Ukip as well. There


are more manifestos to come. The Lib Dems have already brought theirs


out. Isn't the Liberal Democrat campaign in trouble? It doesn't seem


to be doing particular the well in the polls, or at the local elections


a few weeks ago. The Liberal Democrats are trying to fish in


quite a small pool for votes. They are looking to get votes from those


remainers who want to reverse the result, in effect. Tim Farron is


promising a second referendum on the deal at the end of the negotiation


process. And that is a hard sell. So those voting for remain on June 23


are not low hanging fruit by any means? Polls suggesting that half of


those want to reverse the result, so that is a feeling of about 20% on


the Lib Dems, and they are getting slightly less than half at the


moment, but there are not a huge amount of votes for them to get on


that strategy. It doesn't feel like Tim Farron and the Lib Dems have


promised enough. They are making a very serious case on cannabis use in


a nightclub, but the optics of what they are discussing doesn't make


them look like an anchor in a future coalition government that they would


need to be. I wonder if we are seeing the re-emergence of the


2-party system? And it is not the same two parties. In Scotland, the


dynamics of this election seemed to be the Nationalists against the


Conservatives. In England, if you look at what has happened to be Ukip


vote, and what Sam was saying about the Lib Dems are struggling a bit to


get some traction, it is overwhelmingly Labour and the


Conservatives. A different 2-party system from Scotland, but a 2-party


system. There are a number of different election is going on in


parallel. In Scotland it is about whether you are unionist or not.


Here, we have the collapse of the Ukip vote, which looks as though it


is being redistributed in the Tories' favour. This is a unique


election, and will not necessarily set the trend for elections to come.


In the Tory manifesto, I spotted the fact that the fixed term Parliament


act is going to be scrapped. That got almost no coverage! It turned


out to be academic anyway, that it tells you something about how


Theresa May is feeling, and she wants the control to call an


election whenever it suits her. Re-emergence of the 2-party system,


for this election or beyond? For this election, yes, but it shows the


sort of robust strength of parties and their fragility. In other words,


the Lib Dems haven't really recovered from the losses in the


last general election, and are therefore not really seen as a


robust vehicle to deliver Remain. If they were, they might be doing


better. The Labour Party hasn't recovered in Scotland, and yet, if


you look at the basic divide in England and Scotland and you see two


parties battling it out, it is very, very hard for the smaller parties to


break through and last. Many appear briefly on the political stage and


then disappear again. The election had the ostensible goal of Brexit,


but we haven't heard much about it in the campaign. Perhaps the Tories


want to get back onto that. David Davis sounding quite tough this


morning, the Brexit minister, saying there is no chance we will talk


about 100 billion. And we have to have power in the negotiations on


the free trade deal or what ever it is. I think they are keen to get the


subject of the manifesto at this point, because it has not started


too well. There is an irony that Theresa May ostensibly called the


election because she needed a stronger hand in the Brexit


negotiations, and there was an opportunity for the Lib Dems, with


their unique offer of being the party that is absolutely against the


outcome of the referendum, and offering another chance. There


hasn't been much airtime on that particular pledge, because instead,


this election has segued into being all about leadership. Theresa May's


leadership, and looking again at the Tory manifesto, I was struck that


she was saying that this is my plan for the future, not ABBA plan. Even


when talking about social care, he manages to work in a bit about


Theresa May and Brexit. And Boris Johnson this morning, an interview


he gave on another political programme this morning, it was


extraordinarily sycophantic for him. Isn't Theresa May wonderful. There


is a man trying to secure his job in the Foreign Office! Will he succeed?


I think she will leave him. Better in the tent than out. What did you


make of David Davis' remarks? He was basically saying, we will walk away


from the negotiating table if the Europeans slam a bill for 100


billion euros. The point is that the Europeans will not slam a bill for


100 billion euros on the negotiating table. That is the gross figure.


There are all sorts of things that need to be taken into account. I


imagine they will ask for something around the 50 or ?60 billion mark.


It looks that they are trying to make it look like a concession when


they do make their demands in order to soften the ground for what is


going to happen just two weeks after general election day. He makes a


reasonable point about having parallel talks. What they want to do


straightaway is deal with the bill, Northern Ireland and citizens


rights. All of those things are very complicated and interlinked issues,


which cannot be dealt with in isolation. I wouldn't be surprised


if we ended up with parallel talks, just to work out where we are going


with Northern Ireland and the border. Steve, you can't work out


what the Northern Ireland border will be, and EU citizens' writes


here, until you work out what our relationship with the EU in the


future will be. Indeed. The British government is under pressure to deal


quickly with the border issue in Ireland, but feel they can't do so


because when you have a tariff free arrangement outcome, or an


arrangement that is much more protectionist, and that will


determine partly the nature of the border. You cannot have a quick


agreement on that front without knowing the rest of the deal. I


think the negotiation will be complex. I am certain they want a


deal rather than none, because this is no deal thing is part of the


negotiation at this early stage. Sounding tough in the general


election campaign also works electorally. But after the election,


it will be a tough negotiation, beginning with this cost of Brexit.


My understanding is that the government feels it's got to make


the Europeans think they will not do a deal in order to get a deal. They


don't want no deal. Absolutely not. And I'm sure it plays into the


election. I'm sure the rhetoric will change when the election is over.


That's all for today, thank you to all my guests.


The Daily Politics will be back on BBC Two at 12.00


And tomorrow evening I will be starting my series of interviews


with the party leaders - first up is the Prime


Minister, Theresa May, that's at 7pm on BBC One.


And I'll be back here at the same time on BBC One next Sunday.


Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.


We've made great strides tackling HIV.


Imagine if we could create a movement


Andrew Neil and Marie Ashby with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

Andrew is joined by chief secretary to the Treasury David Gauke and shadow Treasury minister Peter Dowd. Journalists Isabel Oakeshott, Steve Richards and Sam Coates on the political panel comment on the week's events and there is a film looking at how the Labour and Conservative manifestos differ.

Download Subtitles