14/05/2017 Sunday Politics East

It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

Theresa May unveils plans to build many more affordable homes

in England, but with no price tag, timetable or building targets -

Labour takes aim at the City with what it calls a Robin Hood Tax

to fund public services, but will traders just

Don't look at the polls - Jeremy Corbyn, at least,

insists he can win this election - so which way will

We'll hear from a focus group in Leeds.

Here in the East, the thousands of nurses that are needed to fill

And why some parties are standing aside this election.

and here, what the parties are saying about tackling the air

pollution problem in London. And with me, our own scientifically

selected focus group of political pundits -

they're not so much undecided as clueless -

Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott They'll be tweeting

throughout the programme. So, we've got two new

policies this morning. Labour say they will introduce

a financial transaction tax if they win the general election

and what they're calling "the biggest crackdown on tax

avoidance in the country's history". The Conservatives say they'll work

with local authorities in England to build council houses

with the right to buy. Theresa May says the policy

"will help thousands of people get on the first rung

of the housing ladder". Steve, what do you make of them? I

have been conditioned after doing tax and spend debates in

pre-election periods for many decades to treat policy is not as

literal but as arguments. In other words if you look back to 2015 the

Tory plan to wipe out the deficit was never going to happen and yet it

framed and large event. In that sense the Robin Hood tax is a

sensible move for Labour to make at this point because it is part of a

narrative of reconfiguring taxation to be fair. Treating it as an

argument rather than something that would happen in day one of Labour

government is sensible. In terms of building houses Theresa May said

right from the beginning when she was in Number Ten that there is a

housing deficit in this country rather than the economic deficit

George Osborne was focusing on, and this is an example of trying to get

house-building going. It seems entirely sensible, not sure how it

works with right to buy but again as framing of a 90 minute it makes

sense. I disagree with Steve on one front which is how sensible Theresa

May's policy is on the housing announcement. I think more broadly

these two announcements have something in common which is that

over the next 24 hours both will probably unravel in different ways.

Ye of little faith! The Mayor of London has already said he doesn't

agree with this, and when people see the actual impact of what looks like

a populist tax will very potentially affect people's pensions, it might

become a lot less popular. On the Tory housing plans, I think it is

difficult to imagine how they are going to implement this huge, what

looks like a huge land and property grab. Through compulsory purchase

orders, which are not a simple instrument. They say they will

change the law but really the idea of paying people below the market

value for their assets is not something I can see sitting easily

with Tory backbenchers or the Tories in the House of Lords. Tom. Both

would appear superficially to be appealing to traditional left and

traditional right bases. What is more Tory than right to buy, then

councils sell on these houses, and Labour slapping a massive tax on the

city. The Tories' plan, I would say look a bit deeper and all of the

Tory narrative from the last six years which hasn't worked well is

talking about the private sector increasing supply in the market. Now

Mrs May is talking about the role for the state after all so this is

the shift creeping in. On the Labour transaction tax, one of the most

interesting things I heard in days was from Paul Mason, former BBC

correspondent, now a cog in Easter extreme. On Newsnight he said don't

worry about whether the Labour manifesto will add up, I'm promising

it will, the bigger Tory attack line should be what on earth will be the

macroeconomic effect of taking so much tax out of the system. Very

well, we shall see. At least we have some policies to talk about.

Now, on Tuesday Labour will launch its manifesto.

But we've already got a pretty good idea of what's in it -

that's because most of its contents were leaked to the media

Labour has a variety of spending pledges including an extra

?6 billion a year for the NHS, an additional ?8 billion for social

care over the lifetime of the next parliament,

as well as a ?250 billion in infrastructure over

The party will support the renewal of the Trident submarine system,

although any Prime Minister should be extremely cautious

about its use, and the party will hold a strategic defence

and security review immediately after the election.

In terms of immigration, Labour will seek "reasonable

management of migration", but it will not make "false

Elsewhere, university tuition fees will be abolished,

and the public sector pay cap, which limits pay rises

for public sector workers to 1%, will be scrapped.

The party also aims to renationalise the railways, the Royal Mail

and the National Grid, as well as creating at least one

A senior Labour backbencher described it to the Sunday Politics

as a manifesto for a leadership who don't "give a toss

about the wider public", and several other Labour candidates

told us they thought it had been deliberately

leaked by the leadership, with one suggesting

the leak was intended to "bounce the National Executive"

And we're joined now from Salford by the Shadow Business Secretary,

Welcome to the programme. The draft manifesto proposed to renationalise

the number of industry. You will wait for the franchises to run out

rather than buy them out at the moment so can you confirm the

railways will not be wholly nationalised until 2030, after three

Labour governments, and Jeremy Corbyn will be 80? I'm not going to

comment on leaks, you will just have to be patient and wait to see what

is in our manifesto. But you have already announced you will

nationalise the railways, so tell me about it. We have discussed taking

the franchises into public ownership as they expire, however the detail

will be set out in the manifesto so I'm not prepared to go into detail

until that policy is formally laid out on Tuesday. That doesn't sound

very hopeful but let's carry on. You will also nationalise the National

Grid, it has a market capitalisation of ?40 billion, why do you want to

nationalise that? Again, I'm not going to speculate on leaks, you

will just have to be patient. But you said you will nationalise the

National Grid so tell's Y. The leaks have suggested but you will just

have to wait and see what the final manifesto states on that one. So is

it a waste of time me asking you how you will pay for something that

costs 40 billion? Be patient, just couple of days to go, but what I

would say is there is growing pressure from the public to reform

the utilities sector. The Competition and Markets Authority

stated in 2015 that bill payers were paying over till debt -- ?2 billion

in excess of what they should be paying so there is a clear need for

reform. The bills we get are from the energy companies, you are not

going to nationalise them, you are going to nationalise the

distribution company and I wondered what is the case for nationalising

the distribution company? As I said, our full plans will be set out on

Tuesday. In relation to the big six energy companies, we know in recent

years they have been overcharging customers... There's no point in

answering questions I am not asking. I am asking what is the case for

nationalising the National Grid? There is a case for reforming the

energy sector as a whole and that looks at the activities of the big

six companies and it will look at other aspects too. You will have to

be patient and wait until Tuesday. What about the Royal Mail? Again,

you will have to wait until Tuesday. Why can't you just be honest with

the British voter? We know you are going to do this and you have a duty

to explain. I'm not even arguing whether it is right or wrong. The

Royal Mail was sold off and we know it was sold under value and British

taxpayers have a reason to feel aggrieved about that. There is a

long-term strategy that would ensure the Royal Mail was classified as a

key piece of infrastructure but the details of that will be set out in

our manifesto because we want to ensure businesses and households

ensure the best quality of service when it comes to their postal

providers. You plan to borrow an extra 25 billion per year, John

McDonnell has already announced this, on public investment, on top

of the around 50 billion already being planned for investment. You

will borrow it all so that means, if you can confirm, that many years

after the crash by 2021, Labour government would still be borrowing

75 billion a year. Is that correct? We have set out ?250 billion of

capital investment, and ?250 billion for a national investment bank. Our

financial and fiscal rules dictate we will leave the Government in a

state of less debt than we found it at the start of the parliament so we

won't increase the national debt at the end of our Parliamentary term.

How can you do that if by 2021 you will still be borrowing around 75

billion a year, which is more than we borrow at the moment? The 500

billion figure is set out over a period of ten years, it's a figure

that has been suggested by Peter Helm from Oxford University as a

figure that is necessary to bring us in line with other industrial

competitors. Similar figures have been suggested by groups such as the

CBI. By the way I have not included all 500 billion, just the 250

billion on public spending, not the extra money. You talk about the

fiscal rules. The draft manifesto said you will leave debt as a

proportion of trend GDP law at the end of each parliament, you have

just said a version of that. What is trend GDP? In clear terms we will

ensure the debt we acquire will be reduced by the end of the

parliament. We won't leave the Government finances in a worse state

than we found them. OK, but what is trend GDP? Our rule is we will

ensure public sector net debt is less than we found it when we came

to power in Government on June the 8th. But that is not what your draft

manifesto says. I'm not going to comment on leaks, you are just going

to have to wait until Tuesday to look at the fine detail and perhaps

we will have another chat then. You have published your plans for

corporation tax and you will increase it by a third and your

predictions assumed that will get an extra 20 billion a year by the end

of the parliament. But that assumes the companies don't change their

behaviour, that they move money around, they leave the country or

they generate smaller profits. Is that realistic? You are right to

make that point and you will see when we set out our policies and

costings in the manifesto that we haven't spent all of the tax take.

We have allowed for different differentials and potential changes

in market activity because that would be approved and direction to

take. But corporation tax is allowed to be cut in France and the United

States, it's only 12.5% in Dublin. Many companies based in Britain are

already wondering whether they should relocate because of Brexit,

if you increase this tax by a third couldn't that clinch it for a number

of them? No, we will still be one of the lowest corporation tax rate in

the G7. Let's look at what's important for business. Cutting

corporation tax in itself doesn't improve productivity, or business

investment and there's no suggestion cutting corporation tax in recent

years has achieved that. Businesses need an investment in tools in

things they need to thrive and prosper, they also need to reduce

the burden at the lower end of the tax scale, before we get to the

Prophet stage. One key example is business rates. We have made the

proposal to government to in -- exclude machinery so businesses can

invest and grow operations in the future but the Government refused.

Corporation tax has been cut since 2010. When it was 28% it brought in

?43 billion a year. Now it is down to 20%, it brought in ?55 billion a

year. By cutting it in the last year, it brought in 21% more, so

what is the problem? It might have brought in more money, but has it

increased business investment in the long term. It is not just about

cutting corporation tax, but it is on the ability of businesses to

thrive and prosper. Business investment in the UK is below are

industrial competitors. Wages are stagnating which doesn't indicate

businesses are not doing well. Let me get it right, you are arguing if

we increase business tax by a third, that will increase investment? I am

not saying that. You just did. Know I didn't, I said reducing business

tax isn't enough, you have to invest in the things businesses need to

thrive and prosper. You have also got to lessen the burden on

business. You have announced a financial transaction tax. Your own

labour Mayor of London said he has vowed to fight it. He said I do not

want a unilateral tax on business in our city, so why are you proceeding

with it? This isn't a new initiative, there is a growing

global pressure to make sure we have fairness in the financial sector.

Ordinary British people are paying for our banking crisis they didn't

cause. Another important point, stamp duty reserve tax was brought

in in the 1600 and there have been little reforms. The sector has

changed and we have do provide changes to the system for that

change. High-frequency trading where we have a state of affairs where a

lot of shares are traded on computers within milliseconds. We

need a tax system that keeps up with that. What happens if they move the

computers to another country? Emily Thornaby said this morning, other

countries had already introduced a financial transaction tax, what

other countries have done that? There are ten countries looking at

introducing a transaction tax. Which ones have done it so far? They will

be later announcing a final package, going through the finer detail at

the moment. But the European Commission tried to get this done in

2011 and it still hasn't happened in any of these countries. But you are

going to go ahead unilaterally and risk these businesses, which

generate a lot of money, moving to other jurisdictions. There is not a

significant risk of that happening. The stamp duty reserve tax is levied

at either where the person or company is domiciled or where the

instrument is issued rather than worth the transaction takes place.

This tax in itself is not enough to make people leave this country in

terms of financial services because there is more to keep these

businesses here in terms of the investment we are making, the

economy that Labour will build, in terms of productivity improvement we

will see. Thank you very much, Rebecca Long-Bailey.

And listening to that was the Home Office Minister, Brandon Lewis.

Over the years, you have got corporation tax by 20%, it is lower

than international standards, so why are so many global companies who

make money out of Great Britain, still not paying 20%? It is one of

the problems with the point Labour were making and Rebecca could not

answer, these companies can move around the world. One of the

important things is having a low tax economy but these businesses, it

encourages them to come at a rate they are prepared to pay. People may

say they are right, if they were paying 19, 20% incorporation tax.

But they are not. Google runs a multi-million pound corporation and

did not pay anywhere near 20%. There are companies that are trading

internationally and that is why we have to get this work done with our

partners around the world. Has there been an improvement? It is more than

they were paying before. Whether it is Google or any other company,

alongside them being here, apart from the tax they pay, it is the

people they employ. The deal was, if you cut the business tax, the

corporation tax on profits, we would get more companies coming here and

more companies paying their tax. It seems it doesn't matter how low, a

number of companies just pay a derisory amount and you haven't been

able to change that. As you outlined, the income taken from the

changing corporation tax has gone up. That is from established British

companies, not from these international companies. It is

because more companies are coming here and paying tax. That is a good

thing. There is always more to do and that is why we want to crack

down. In the last few weeks in the Finnish Parliament, Labour refused

to put to another ?8.7 billion of tax take we could have got by

cracking down further. You claim to have made great progress on cracking

down on people and companies to pay the tax they should. But the tax gap

is the difference between what HMRC takes in and what it should take in.

It has barely moved in five years, so where is the progress? He have

brought in 150 billion more where we have cracked down on those tax

schemes. The gap is still the same as it was five years ago. It's gone

from 6.8, 26.5. It has gone down. The Prime Minister and the

Chancellor said they want to continue work on to get more money

on these companies while still having a competitive rate to

encourage these companies. While big business and the wealthy continue to

prosper, the Office for Budget Responsibility tell us those on

average earnings in this country will be earning less in real terms

by 2021 than they did in 2008. How can that be fair? I don't see it

that way. I haven't seen the figures you have got. What I can say to you,

Andrew, we have made sure the minimum wage has gone up, the actual

income tax people pay has gone down. So in their pocket, real terms,

people have more money. You are the self-styled party of work. We keep

emphasising work. Under your government you can work for 13 years

and still not earn any more at the end of it, and you did at the start.

Where is the reward for effort in that? I have not seen those figures.

There are 2.8 million more people, more jobs in economy than there was.

1000 jobs every day and people are working and developing through their

careers. This is what I thought was odd in what Rebecca was saying,

investing in people is what the apprenticeship levy is about,

companies are investing their works force to take more opportunities

that there. We are talking about fairness, politicians talk about

hard-working people and we know the average earnings are no higher than

they were in 2008. We know the pay and bonuses of senior executives

have continued to grow and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has

shown 3 million of the poorest households will lose an average of

?2500 a year in the next Parliament, benefits frozen, further sanctions

kick in. 3 million of the poorest losing 2500. Under the Tories, one

law for the rich and another for the poor. It is quite wrong. First of

all, we have got to be fair to the taxpayer who is funding the welfare

and benefit system. Which is why the welfare was right. Get more people

in work and then it is important to get more people upscaling. As that

allowance rises, people have more of the money they earn in their pocket

to be able to use in the economy. People will be worse off. 2500,

among the poorest already. They will have more money in their pocket as

we increase the allowance before people pay tax. We have seen

millions of people coming out of tax altogether. The reason I ask these

questions, you and the Prime Minister go on and on about the just

about managing classes. I am talking about the just about managing and

below that. It is all talk, you haven't done anything for them. We

have made sure they have an increasing minimum wage, it has gone

up more under us than any other previous government. Their wages

will be still lower in real terms. Let me come on to this plan for

housing. We have announced a new plan to increase affordable housing,

social housing, some council housing and social housing built by the

associations. How much money is behind this? It is part of the 1.4

billion announced in the Autumn Statement. How many homes will you

get for 1.4 billion? That depends on the negotiations with local

authorities. It is local authorities, who know the area best.

I will not put a number on that. 1.4 billion, if you price the house at

100,000, which is very low, particularly for the South, back at

you 14,000 new homes. That is it. What we have seen before, how the

local government can leveraged to build thousands more homes. That is

what we want to see across the country. It is not just about the

money, for a lot of local authorities it is about the

expertise and knowledge on how to do this. That is why support from the

housing communities minister will help. What is the timescale, how

many more affordable homes will be built? I will not put a number on

it. You announced it today, so you cannot tell me how many more or what

the target is? It is a matter of working with the local authorities

who know what their local needs are, what land they have got available.

What we saw through the local elections with the Metro mayors,

they want to deliver in their areas, whether it is the West of England,

the north-east, Liverpool, Manchester and we want to work with

them. You have said variations of this for the past seven years and I

want some credibility. When you cannot tell us how much money, what

the target and timescale is, and this government, under which

affordable house building has fallen to a 24 year low. 1.2 million

families are on waiting lists for social housing to rent. That is your

record. Why should we believe a word you say? This is different to what

we have been doing over the last two years. We want to develop and have a

strong and stable economy that can sustain that 1.4 billion homes. This

is important. In 2010, we inherited the lowest level of house building,

75,000 new homes. That is about 189,000 over the last four years.

That is a big step forward after the crash, getting people back into the

industry. More first-time buyers onto the market. Final question, in

2010, 2011, your first year in government, there were 60,000

affordable homes built. May not be enough, but last day it was 30 2000.

So why should we trust anything you say about this? On housing, we have

delivered. We have delivered more social housing. Double what Labour

did in 13 years, in just five years. This is what this policy is about,

working with local authorities to deliver more homes to people in

their local areas. Thank you. Now, they have a deficit

of between 15 and 20% in the polls, but Jeremy Corbyn and those

around him insist Labour can win. If the polls are right they've got

three and half weeks to change voters' minds and persuade those

fabled undecided voters We enlisted the polling organisation

YouGov to help us find out how the performance of party leaders

will affect behaviour Leeds, a city of three quarters

of a million people, eight Parliamentary seats and home

to our very own focus group. Our panel was recruited

from a variety of backgrounds and the majority say they haven't

decided who to vote for yet. Watching behind the glass,

two experts on different sides Giles Cunningham, who headed up

political press at Downing Street under David Cameron

and Aaron Bastani, Corbin supporter, under David Cameron

and Aaron Bastani, Corbyn supporter, I think Theresa May sees herself

as a pound shop Thatcher. Milliband's policies but when it

came about who you want,

if you wake up on maybe a 2015, We found in a couple of focus

groups, people saying we'd be quite relieved,

even though some of those same people have been saying we quite

like the Labour policies. I think the fact that Corbyn's

going so hard on his values, this is a really progressive

manifesto, they live But I think that's a new challenge,

that wasn't there in 2015. Is there anyone here that

you don't recognise? After a little warm up,

the first exercise, recognising I think it's nice to have a strong

woman in politics, I do. But I've got to say,

when she comes on the news, I kind of do think,

here we go again. Tell me about Tim Farron, what

are your impressions of Tim Farron? It isn't going to do anything,

it isn't going to change anything. You'll be surprised to hear it's

actually the Greens. Strong and stable leadership

in the national interest. Yes, Team May, it's

the British equivalent of make What do we think about this one

for the many and not the few? It's not quite as bad

as strong and stable, but it will probably get

on our nerves after a while. We must seize that chance today

and every day until June the 8th. But that's not quite my

question, my question is, if you are Prime Minister,

we will leave, come hell or high water, whatever is on the table

at the end of the negotiations? If we win the election,

we'll get a good deal with Europe. Assertive and in control

and he felt comfortable But the second one, I thought

he was very hesitant. I thought he was kind of,

hovering around, skirting around and that's the second

time I've seen a similar interview with the question

being asked regarding Brexit. I don't think I'd have

any confidence with him You think you are going up

against some quite strong people, how are you going to stand

up for us? When you are in negotiations,

you need to be tough. And actually is right

to be tough sometimes, particularly when you are doing

something for the country. There's a reason for talking

about strong and stable leadership. It's about the future

of the country, it's It's just that people kind of listen

to that kind of thing and think Both on The One Show

and in the news. She attracts the public better

than what Corbyn does. She didn't answer the question

in a more articular way than Corbyn Imagine that Theresa

May is an animal. So, in your minds,

what animal is coming to mind I've done a Pekinese because I think

she's all bark and no bite. Alpaca because she's

superior looking and woolly I don't think his policies

are for the modern, real world. A mouse because they are weak

and they can be easily bullied, but also they can catch

you by surprise if you're What do you take away

from what you saw then, and what message would you send back

to the Tories now? I think what came over is people see

Theresa May as a strong politician, not everyone likes her,

but you don't need to be liked to be elected,

because ultimately it's about who do you trust with your future

and your security. I think what I also take out

of that focus group, was it was a group of floating

voters, there was no huge appetite for the Lib Dems and there was no

huge appetite for Ukip. So my messaged back to CCHQ

would be stick to the plan. I thought the response

to the manifesto was excellent. It's clear that people aren't

particularly keen on Theresa May, There are some associations with her

about strength and stability, which is exactly what the Tory party

want of course, but they are not positive and nobody thinks

that she has a vision So, what I'd say the Jeremy Corbyn,

what I'd say to the Labour Party is, they need to really emphasise

the manifesto in Jeremy Corbyn himself has to perform

out of his skin and I think he has to reemphasise those

characteristics which may be have come to the fore may be

over the last 12 months, resilience, strength and the fact

that he's come this far, why not take that final step and go

into ten Downing Street? We're joined now by the American

political consultant For the sake of this discussion,

assume the polls at the moment are broadly right, is there any hope for

Mr Corbyn in the undecided voters? Know, and this is a very serious

collection with serious consequences to who wins. Nobody cares whether

you can draw and what animal they represent, they want to know where

they stand, and I felt that was frivolous. I come to Britain to

watch elections because I learned from here. Your elections are more

substantial, more serious, more policy and less about personality

and that peace was only about personality. That's partly because

Mrs May has decided to make this a presidential election. You can see

on the posters it is all Team May. I agree with that, and in her language

she says not everyone benefits from a Conservative government, I don't

see how using anything Republicans have used in the past. In fact her

campaign is more of a centrist Democrats but it is a smart strategy

because it pushes Corbyn further to the left. Of course you said Hillary

Clinton have won. On election night the polling was so bad in America,

the exit polls that were done, the BBC told America she had won. No, I

was anchoring the programme that night, I ignored your tweet. The BBC

had the same numbers. Yes, but we did not say she had won, I can

assure you of that. Because of people like you we thought she had

but we didn't broadcast it. That was a smart approach. My point is other

than teasing you, maybe there is hope for Jeremy Corbyn. I think you

will have one of the lowest turnout in modern history and I think Labour

will fall to one of the lowest percentages, not percentage of

number of seats they have had, and this will be a matter of

soul-searching for both political parties. What you do with a sizeable

majority, and she has a responsibility to tell the British

people exactly what happens as she moves forward. He and Labour will

have to take a look at whether they still represent a significant slice

of the British population. Do you see a realignment in British

politics taking place? I see a crumbling of the left and yet there

is still a significant percentage of the British population that once

someone who is centre-left. And they like a lot of Mr Corbyn's policies.

I'm listening to Michael foot. I went to school here in the 1980s and

I feel like I'm watching the Labour Party of 35 years ago, in a

population that wants to focus on the future, not the past. Thank you.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Hello. Welcome to Sunday Politics East.

Later in the programme why, in some places,

you will not be able to vote for parties like these,

But first, new figures show just how much pressure the health service

The latest survey for cancelled operations shows that, between

surgery in our hospitals was delayed on 2,745 occasions.

Parts of Essex and Norfolk have already cut IVF for women

And these are the latest numbers for NHS staff shortages.

3,400 nurses are needed to fill vacancies here.

according to the latest figures from the Royal College of Nursing.

So, how are the political parties pledging to help?

As political footballs go, the NHS is used to getting a good kicking.

Last year, it was a carrot to court Brexit votes.

Now, it has being fought over by the main parties.

I have come here to Great Yarmouth, to meet a lady

who is recuperating here after a knee operation -

a knee operation which was cancelled four times.

Lesley Joseph does like a stroll along the prom,

but getting a new knee was no stroll, when her routine operation

At the fourth time, she was already actually prepped for surgery.

I also heard that they were cancelling people's cancer

treatment, which I thought was shocking, because you need to have

that treatment, more so than a knee or hip operation.

We worked hard to help keep the National Health

Service running and it has ended up running down.

In many ways, Lesley is one of the lucky ones,

because at least, in the end, she did get her surgery.

But many routine operations are being cancelled or delayed

to save money. It is called health rationing.

People like smokers and the overweight are being told they

One-fifth of clinical commissioning groups are already doing this.

Tony Durkin speaks for the RCN Essex, where the

health rationing for the likes of smokers and overweight people is one

The NHS has always had to prioritise, but he says

Every day, doctors, nurses and others are having to

make choices about who needs an operation, who can wait for an

operation, and who can come into the hospital and who cannot.

If you require urgent care, you require urgent care.

If you need routine care, how long can we wait until that

operation or treatment needs to occur?

It should not be about obesity and it should not be about smoking,

but about how could we keep that person reasonably fit and well

before they actually do need that operation?

So, what are the parties promising, to keep the wheels turning?

No manifesto yet from the Conservatives, but they have

already been talking about an extra 10,000 mental health staff.

Labour's leaked draft manifesto pledged ?6 billion,

although how they would pay for it is not manifest.

And the Liberal Democrats would put on 1p in the ?1 on tax.

I would be prepared to pay more, but I cannot afford it.

I think they do a good job. I lost my husband last year

and they were marvellous. I would be prepared to pay more.

I do not think we should have to do that.

I think enough money should be brought forward for the NHS

The pressing problem is staffing, which we suffer from in the East

particularly the rapid growth of over-85s, who need more care.

According to the latest figures from the RCN,

there are at least 3,400 nursing vacancies in the East alone.

These trainee nurses, soon to graduate at the

University of Northampton, will fill some of these gaps.

They have been celebrating International Nurses Day,

as they think about joining an NHS widely believed to be in crisis.

When A is blocked when I walk into work, I can tell what type

of day it is going to be by just looking in the corridors.

The NHS is understaffed, so I thought I could make

a difference if I train as an adult nurse, so that I could make

We are running out of money, I think.

But I love it, so we have got to keep it going.

If we do not have nurses, where are we going to go?

The Green Party, amongst others, say the

funding gap for the NHS is actually around ?30 billion.

But whatever it is, the service is a supermassive black

hole, a money pit, and whatever it gets, it will always be

It will eat it up and still come back for more.

Well, Jeremy Hunt was at the Princess Alexandra Hospital

in Harlow this week and we asked him about nurse shortages.

Well, if you look at this hospital, there are 35 more

We are seeing more doctors and nurses across the NHS,

But there are thousands of vacancies.

Yes, but the trick is, we need to train more and

that is why we are seeing record numbers of nurses

being trained, record numbers of doctors being trained.

And that, in the end, for the people of Harlow,

Here with me are Councillor Peter Reeve for Ukip,

Rupert Read for the Green Party and Sir Bob Russell, who is standing

All these vacancies be filled? The reality is, that is a funding

problem which has to be addressed. We are the only party with joined up

the NHS I tackling the likes of air the NHS I tackling the likes of air

quality pollution. To tackle stress problems. Only by having that joined

up approach on prevention which we do, can you get the long-term

funding of the NHS fireball. Colchester Hospital has

faced huge challenges. And it is not going

to get any better. Nurse numbers going down,

population increasing, Colchester had the ?21 million

deficit. That is the picture across the region. If it was not for all

these medical people from the European Union, without that stuff

whose future know is very uncertain, the situation in the NHS would be

even worse. We are promising to put that 1p on income tax cuts we need

to raise the money. Under the to raise the money. Under the

Conservative Party, the NHS is not safe. We will look at the European

Union Sabre. No one is arguing that we will not let people and with the

rate skill and ability into the country after we leave the

Union. But many of these workers are Union. But many of these workers are

not from the European Union. They are from oak with the. But how is

this going to be paid for? We are the only party being truthful about

this. People are being fleeced by another policy announcement by

taxation rises. We are fairly clear. We will reduce foreign need in order

to pay for the NHS. We are the only party who are honest about putting

British people first. But what about the Green party? We will reasoning

billion pounds by reducing foreign aid. We want a proper NHS. All of

the other parties are not supporting properly the NHS. If we get a

landslide conservative government, privatisation will be speeded up.

They are floating the idea that people will have to pay for doctors.

The only solution is better clear and preventative measures. These two

go hand-in-hand. Before the last Conservative government, they were

less privatisations. Privatisation started under the Labour Party and.

We need to stop the be Dover. At one point, Ukip was talking about

an American-style insurance system. We are talking figures on the sides

of buses again, are we? No, we have been said that foreign

residents should not be allowed to come in here and use the NHS is a

tourism venue. Health tourism needs to be stopped. Everybody coming into

this country needs to have health insurance so that they pay the way.

It is not just about finance. It is about training. The shortage in

nursing staff has been there for a long time. When we are talking about

nurses may be having to pay their own tuition fees, we are harking

back to previous claims. But he were agree it is a huge challenge?

Undoubtedly. Now, it seems this snap election

is proving to be unusual in more It has emerged that some parties

are making calculations Although Ukip may struggle

to get any of its own MPs into Parliament this election,

it could still have a big impact And the Green Party has stood down

in North Norfolk, to support The move follows Ukip's

announcement that it would not field a candidate

in North Norfolk, in Mr Lamb, who is anti-Brexit,

anti-Brexit, has more than 8,000 people

voted for Ukip. So, Ukip is calling on its

supporters to vote Conservative. The people who voted

Ukip in 2015, I do not think they will naturally

gravitate to the Conservatives. I think many of them will have

supported Norman and the Liberal Democrats in the past

and we will be working hard to Ukip has also decided not

to stand in Peterborough, where Conservative Stuart Jackson

has a majority of just under 2,000 Ukip hopes the 7,000 people

who voted for them two years ago will now back Mr Jackson,

to ensure a pro-Brexit is elected. I guess it will be helpful,

because a lot of these Ukip voters were formerly Conservative

voters and I think people now realise that there is really not

much point in voting Ukip. Theresa May is going to take

us out and we need all Labour, which is standing in both

North Norfolk and Peterborough, is dismissive of the move

and believes many Ukip voters People have voted Ukip

for many reasons, not least, to leave the European Union,

which has happened. But they also voted Ukip because

they were worried about housing, affordable housing, public

services, the NHS the NHS. And those are the things Labour

are now promising to deliver on. And you can see a full list

of who is standing in North Norfolk Ukip has also announced that it

will not be standing against keen Tory Brexiteers,

like Philip Hollobone or, more surprisingly,

Labour's Kelvin Hopkins. In fact, Ukip is not fielding any

candidate across Bedfordshire, It is taking on

Labour's Gavin Shuker who both supported Remain

in the referendum. I am joined by Professor

Paul Whiteley, from Is this a new phenomenon -

parties deciding not to To some extent. But I do not think

Ukip are being totally honest when they are talking about these

strategic reasons. They are not fighting at a number of seats where

they are incumbent Eurosceptics. A local level, it looks like a number

of the candidates have dropped out. They were badly hit by the local

elections and they are concerned about losing deposits in the

election. I think the performance has been pure.

Is what we are seeing a political move or is it practical -

down to a lack of resources, money and candidates?

They are trying to pit eat good course on a bad situation after what

amounted to a disaster at the local elections.

And in your experience, do voters mind being told

to "lend their vote" to another party?

There are a number of organisations planning to do this. But when we do

any surveys of individual members of the public, whether they will vote

tactically, only about 5% ever see that the will. There could be

important in some constituencies, but overall in the country as a

whole, it is not that important. In the case of Ukip, they are

perpetually feuding fewer candidates across the country than the Green

party. -- feuding. The After last week's local election

defeats, is it the end for Ukip? eight do not. In the elections in

France, the National front, which is similar, got 11 million votes in

France. They represent a constituency which still exists in

Britain and in the rest of Europe. People who feel left behind. They

feel the government does not work for them. That will continue. If

Brexit it proves to be a huge problem and create economic problems

in this region, then I think support for the year will come back. But at

the moment, the other at the low point. You are putting a positive

gloss on this. It is all about resources. The last thing for your

speaker said was true, but I was rather sceptical about the rest of

it. It is not just about Brexit. For many people who voted for us and we

saw this play out in the local elections, the Prime Minister

basically said Brexit was in danger because the Liberal Democrats and

the Labour Party will gang up. You will not get what you democratically

opted for. Many people are believing the Prime Minister. They were very

worried about the Liberal Democrats and Labour policy on Brexit. That

puts us in a difficult position. We do not want Brexit to be

compromised. We guarantee she will start backtracking like you have

never seen before and after the selection. How do you feel about the

situation in North Norfolk? We have got people via whom 812 fought for

the Green party but they are being denied that. There's a tiny handful

of seats which may be contentious, with the result is not certain. But

we think it is important they are to have cooperation with other parties.

In the vast majority of seats, there will be a party from the Green

party. But one consequence of the stupid election system is that

people can vote for whoever they want. Many of the seats are already

predetermined, which is another reason that we need proportional

representation. Norman Lamb has been terrific. You are grateful for the

support of Green party voters? I am happy for the support of anyone who

recognises the work that Norman Lamb has done there. The last thing this

country wants is a landslide for the country wants is a landslide for the

Conservative government. Now, sealed with a kiss,

in our our 60 Second round-up of the week,

with Deborah McGurran. On the first day of proper

campaigning for the general election,

Theresa May came to Norwich, with a promise that Brexit

will open up new job for the region. The enthusiasm of

the young people shows that I think this is going to be

great, in ensuring they have got the skills needed for the jobs

of the future, but also in developing

the economy of the future. School funding in Cambridgeshire

came under the spotlight this week, where there are long-running

concerns about per-pupil We can get that, partly by scrapping

some of the Tory vanity projects there are, like the huge

amounts of money being put towards new free schools,

school which are undersubscribed, which do not have

enough people coming in. The important thing about this is,

what employers tell me they need is skilled workers.

And it is our education system which will provide

these skills in the future. And Paul Nuttall took

the fight to Basildon, in the wake of Ukip's county council

defeats last week. It has been a difficult

time for the party. What Ukip needs to do is stay

on the pitch, because if it does, our positive policies will come

back onto the table. And the party leader was happy

to demonstrate that his enthusiasm Education.

The fair funding formula. Would the Lib Dems re

calculate the fair funding We believe in additional funding.

?400 million across the east of England. I am supporting the union

campaign to stop the privatisation of education. Never mind the NHS

being privatised, we are also seeing education being privatised.

Remember, Margaret Thatcher did away with more grammar schools than any

previous Education Secretary. You want to get rid of academies,

but their track record on raising standards in failing

schools is a good one. Academies do not act as easy a

school which takes and everyone in the local area, so that is a sense

of bias. We have other key priorities for education. We want

children out into the natural world, rather than being stuck behind a

desk. That is proven to be better for the health. And we want to stop

all you shouldn't. Not just pollution from the atmosphere but

the likes of pollution from advertising. The likes of

Scandinavian countries have done that.

You want to bring back grammar schools, yet scrap GCSEs

for those who decided to go down the technical qualifications route.

Doesn't that feel like the old grammar versus secondary moderns?

More than technical colleges are nothing like the old comprehensives.

But the real issue is how we fund education properly. Smoke and

mirrors from the traditional parties. We have seen an 8% cut in

education funding. Teachers cannot do their job properly. It is not

often you see people in public service standing out scene, our

industry is terribly underfunded. We will be back next

week with the latest Tories are saying. It is a very

emotive subject and we have run out of time.

On Thursday nominations closed in the 650 parliamentary

seats across the country, so now we know exactly who's

We've been analysing the parties' candidates to find out

what they might tell us about the make-up of the House

Well, we know Theresa May is committed to delivering Brexit and

analysis of Conservative candidates has shown that

in their top 100 target seats, 37 candidates supported leave

during last year's referendum campaign

and 20 supported remain; 43 have not made public

In the last parliament, the vast majority of Labour MPs

were hostile to Jeremy Corbyn so how supportive are Labour

Well, of 50 of Labour's top 100 target seats

17 candidates have expressed support for Mr Corbyn.

20 candidates supported Owen Smith in last year's leadership contest

or have expressed anti-Corbyn sentiment, and

If they won those, the Labour benches would be

marginally more sympathetic to Mr Corbyn than they are now.

What do the figures tell us about where the other

Well, the Lib Dems have decided not to stand against the Greens

in Brighton Pavilion, and are fielding 629

candidates this year - that's two fewer than 2015.

The number of Ukip candidates has fallen dramatically.

They are standing in 247 fewer constituencies than 2015,

throwing their support behind solidly pro-Brexit Tories

in some areas such as Lewes and Norfolk North.

The Greens are fielding 103 fewer candidates

than at the last election, standing down to help

other progressive candidates in some places.

The most liking statistic is the demise in Ukip candidates, is this

their swansong? And I think so. It is remarkable how few Ukip

candidates are standing. It is hard to see they will suddenly revive in

the next couple of years. I think this is probably the end. Frank

Luntz mentioned the fragmentation of the left was a feature of this

election, but also there is the consolidation of the right, and if

you take the things together that could explain why the polls are

where they are. Absolutely, that's precisely what happened at the start

of the 1980s, the right was incredibly united and that's when we

started talking about majorities of over 100 or so. No matter what the

size of Theresa May's majority, it will be the total collapse of Ukip,

but not just because we are now leaving the EU and that was their

only reason for being, but a whole lot of people voted for Ukip because

they felt the Tories were no longer listening. Theresa May has given the

impression that she is listening, and that is the biggest possible

thing that could happen to the Tory vote. Fragmentation of the left,

consolidation of the right? It's one of the lessons that is never learnt,

it happened in the 1980s, it doesn't take much for the whole thing to

fracture so now you have on the centre-left the SNP, the Labour

Party, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats all competing for the same

votes and when you have, fleetingly perhaps, large numbers coalescing on

the right in one party, there is only going to be one outcome. It

happens regularly. It doesn't mean the Tories haven't got their own

fragility. Two years ago, David Cameron and George Osborne the

dominant figures, neither are in Parliament now which is a symptom of

the fragility this election is disguising. Mrs May's position in a

way reminds me of Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, I won't be outflanked on

the right, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, I won't be outflanked on the

right, so the National Front didn't get through either timed he ran to

the second round on like this time, and now Mrs May on Brexit won't be

outflanked Iver and as a result has seen off right flank. And also she

is looking to the left as well with some of the state interventions.

What was interesting about the analysis you showed a few minutes

ago was the number of Tory candidates who have apparently not

declared which way they voted in the referendum, and you would have

thought if this election was all about Brexit, as some would claim,

that would become an unsustainable position, and actually more it's

about leadership. But the point that I'm now hearing from a number of

Labour candidates that they are seeing Tory leaflets that don't even

have the Tory candidate's name on them, it is just about Theresa May.

I am glad they are keeping to the law because by law they have to put

it on. It has been harder for some of the smaller parties too because

of the speed of the election being called. We have the manifesto is

coming out this week. I think Labour Forshaw on Tuesday, we are not yet

sure when the Tories will bring bears out. I suggest one thing, it

will at least for people like me bring an end to the question you

will have to wait for the manifesto. And Rebecca Long baby will never

have that excuse again, isn't it wonderful! She is not the only one.

When you are trying to take the north and Midlands from Labour, I

would go to one or the other. For me, I can barely hold back my

excitement over the Tory manifesto. This will be, I think, the most

important day for the British government for the next five years.

That wasn't irony there? You actually meant that? I'm not even

being cynical at all on Sunday Politics! This is a huge day and

it's because I think we will see... I don't think Mrs May will play it

safe and I don't think we will get the broadbrush stuff that she might

be advised to do. I think she will lay out precisely what you want to

do over the next five years and take some big risks. Then finally after a

year of this guessing and theorising, we will finally work out

what Mrs May is all about. She will say she doesn't want the next

parliament to be all about Brexit, though she knows that's the next

important thing she has to deliver in some way, so she gets a mandate

for that if the polls are right but she

does have very different ideas from Mr Cameron about how to run a

country. She will I assume one to mandate for what these different

ideas are. Otherwise there is no point in holding an early election.

You will get a majority, but if you get a mandate to carry on

implementing the Cameron and Osborne manifesto it would be utterly

pointless. I agree, it is the pivotal event of the election and it

will be interesting to see the degree to which she expands on the

line which interests me about its time to look at the good that

government can do. Because in a way this moves the debate on in UK

politics from, from 97 the Blair Brown governments were insecure

about arguing about the role of government. Cameron Osborne

government similarly so, so here you have a Labour Party talking about

the role of government and the state, and Tory leader apparently

doing so was well. I think that will be really interesting to see whether

it is fleshed out in any significant way. And it is not a natural Tory

message. Harold Macmillan talked about the role of the state, Ted

Heath Mark two was pretty big on the state, the industrial policy and so

on, and even if it is not thought to be that Tory, does she get away with

it because she deliver such a big victory if that's what she does

deliver? Just inject a little note of scepticism, I wonder how much of

this is authentically Theresa May. I was interested to and talk to

someone who used to sit in cabinet meetings during which Theresa May

never expressed an opinion on anything outside the Home Office

briefs. Other ministers were roving all over their colleagues' briefs.

So where are the ideas coming from? I think we can point to Nick

Timothy. One of her closest advisers in Downing Street. It will be

interesting to see how that evolves. On Thursday I think we will all be

talking about something called Urdington Toryism. Urdington is the

suburb of Birmingham where Nick Timothy comes from, who is very much

Theresa May's policy brain and leading inspiration. Urdington

Toryism is about connecting the party with traditional working class

voters, and their belief to do that is not just taking away government

out of their lives but showing them that government can actually help

their lives. It can be a force for good to rebuild the trust. A lot of

what Mrs May talks about is all... It is talk and then a lot of it

suddenly goes by the wayside. What happened to worker directors on the

boards. It is designed to appeal to that constituency and then nothing

happens. She had an excuse before in the sense that it wasn't in the 2015

manifesto and she had a small majority so therefore she arguably

had to water down some of the stuff for example in her Tory conference

speech, which had a lot of this active government material in it. If

she puts it in the manifesto, it is a sign she plans to do it and will

have no excuse if she then gets nervous afterwards because it will

be in there. If it wasn't for Brexit, this great overwhelming

issue, I think this election will be seen as quite a significant

development in terms of an argument around the role of government,

much-needed. But Brexit unfortunately overshadows it all. As

much as we like our arguments over the role of government we will hear

strong and stable, stable and strong ad nauseam, aren't we? Absolutely,

and we heard the same old lines from the Labour Party as well so they are

all at it. It will be a fascinating week, stop talking it down! Thanks

to our panel. The Daily Politics will be

back on BBC Two at noon I'll be back here at the same time

on BBC One next Sunday. Remember - if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics. When it came to my TV habits,

I'd watch anything... But now I can sign in online

and get more of what I love. I'm kept up to date

with the shows I love and I get suggestions

on subjects I'll like. A new personalised BBC

is on its way. To tailor the benefits to you,

sign in and introduce yourself.