14/05/2017 Sunday Politics London

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.

We look at the Green electoral offer 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 Coming up here in 20

minutes, the Week Ahead. First though, the Sunday

Politics where you are. Hello and welcome to the London part

of the show. Joining me for the duration -

David Lammy, Labour candidate for Tottenham, and Mark Field

Conservative candidate for the I want to start with you David

and the Labour Manifesto. Let's talk about tax because the

parts of the Labour manifesto we have seen so far is date they are

planning to increase taxes on those who earn over ?30,000 per year, do

you support that? Absolutely, average wages in London are around

35,000, depending on where you are in the city. When I think of care

workers, the vast majority need public services we can count on and

that means for the small percentage at the top they should pay a bit

more. But why not more than that? John McDonnell says it is a modest

increase, but why not be more radical? We have also said there

should be changes to corporation tax, which were slashed dramatically

by George Osborne, and I think inheritance tax, which was also

slashed by the Government, so it's not just the income tax threshold we

are looking at, but quite properly, if you see the social care crisis we

have got, if you are worried about A queues, we need at the top to

pay more and that's why it's popular. 58% on pest and saying they

were for it. And Labour has been clear, if you want to go for a low

tax party you must vote for the Labour party, not the Conservative

Party. Let's see what is in the manifesto. I don't think you should

prejudge it. Londoners do not feel undertaxed. Which Londoners? Many

Londoners. I expect the Londoners I represent are slightly different...

In Ealing and Acton, Brentford and Chiswick, areas such as Westminster

North, 80,000 is not a lot of money. It is a very expensive city in which

to live, their cost of living is high, but anyone on ?55,000 per year

will think Hang on, I'm two promotions away from being regarded

as super rich. Do you think anyone who burns over ?80,000 are

super-rich? I can afford to pay a bit more and I am over ?80,000 and

so is Mark. The vast majority of Londoners are nowhere near that and

that is on two incomes in their homes. We have been feeling the

squeeze since 2008 when wages have not gone up in this city. Are you

supporting the wrong people in this election if you are going to

criticise a policy like this? If you look at it in the round across the

country, 95% of people won't pay higher taxes under Labour, that's

pretty good. That's the way they are putting it at the moment. People are

aspiring to earn more. I think the biggest story I hear particularly

about income tax is that many people who are burning in the higher rates

of tax feel a massive disincentive to working harder. Are you killing

aspirations? The choice is between taxation or austerity, and the

Tories have gone for slashing and burning as always. Our local

authority not even properly able to clean the streets and the rubbish

bins. Look at the housing we haven't built. All that we absolutely need

to see a tax threshold increase. Let's talk about the style of the

campaign, Labour were criticised in parts of the press because of the

last week but what about the Tory campaign, is it too presidential?

Theresa May has made it all about her, not about the party. Not at

all, it's about the team behind her. She has made it clear, and clearly

there is a disparity, and we want to say to the public at large there is

a choice. Only two people can be Prime Minister come the 9th of June.

It cannot be Nicola Sturgeon or Tim Farron, and it's right to boil it

down to a choice. It has been because I presidential campaign but

Theresa May has strong views and she needs not just a mandate to get

Brexit through but more importantly there has been too much short-term

is in politics as a whole. The idea that we want to say we want a

domestic agenda... Has it been extended beyond just Theresa May, in

our experiences in trying to get Tory representatives to put people

up... Yes, you are here but we have also experienced people who said

they will come on, then it has been scuppered by Conservative Central

office which plays into the idea of questions being briefed from

journalists to Theresa May before she is asked questions. To be fair

all elections are thermally controlled events. You are always

looking to try to find divisions and it applies to the Labour Party as

well as our party, rather than have a broad debate. As London MPs David

and I probably agree on more things that might meet the eye but there

are certain issues where we wouldn't be entirely at one with our party

necessarily, on whole range of issues such as migration. We are

living in a global city, we recognise the importance of

financial services, and therefore if we come on the programme is the last

thing we want to hear is, you are divided from what your party

leadership are saying. In the first in our series of films

looking at what the parties have to offer London,

Andrew Cryan has been out and about with the Green

party in North London. The fullest environmental parties

blossomed in the 1970s. Are we really going to have

twice as many cars? But today they've evolved

into something different, and the Green Party is fighting this

election on a whole range of policies, many of which bear

a striking similarity When I heard their manifesto

being leaked and discussed on Radio 4 yesterday morning, I thought

it was our manifesto that had been leaked for a moment,

and then I realised some of the policies weren't quite

as radical as ours. The Green Party manifesto

is due out in a few days, but the policies they have released,

well many are exactly the same as Labour's, including votes for 16

year olds and a promise to end both university tuition fees

and NHS privatisation. Both parties say they want to scrap

the Government's immigration target, introduce rent controls,

and build a very similar number Well, the Greens, I think,

have the real challenge, electorally, that the Labour Party

in its current and with its current leadership

is probably quite attractive to many Green voters,

so those voters who in ex-Labour voters who had gone

to the Greens will now But there is one big policy

the Greens are hoping They want a second

referendum on EU membership. People should vote Green for a party

that will give people a say on the terms of any EU exit deal

that is negotiated by whoever is Prime Minister after

the general election. But the reality of this election

is that the Green Party's number one priority is to protect their soul

MP, Caroline Lucas, in Brighton Pavilion,

and maybe if they are lucky pick up At the weekends, many Green

activists from London are not campaigning in the capital

but jumping on a train On the Green Party website,

none of the seats they are giving priority to are in London,

and in fact, in some of the key races in the capital,

the Greens aren't putting Now, this is one of

the tightest constituencies in all of the country,

Ealing Central and Acton. The Labour Party won it last

time by just 274 votes. Now, on the 8th of June,

the Green Party have decided not to stand a candidate,

saying people should lend their votes to Labour

and keep the Tories out. Stephen Clarke has helped

negotiate deals between those There are now five seats in London

where the Greens have I think the Green Party have clearly

operated more in the spirit of the alliance than the other

parties and I think this has got They passed a resolution

at their recent conference which said it was for local parties

to decide whether, in the interests of pushing the Green agenda

and pushing electoral change, if they chose to stand

aside they could. Traditionally the Greens have tended

to rely on younger voters, but where they are standing

candidates in London, they will be fighting hard for votes

from people of all ages. The question is whether

in their hearts they are I am joined by Sian Berry

from the London Assembly, The Tories have called the

selection, voters out there know they shouldn't do just what the

Tories say. Lots of people are wondering how we can prevent this. 1

million voted in the last election for the Green party but we still

only came out with one MP. The system is broken and we have to be

working with voters to change the system so millions of people across

the country in marginals and in areas where the Greens are not

strong, where it is Labour against Tory save seeds, we have to do

something about that. That is always the battle cry from you and the

Liberal Democrats in terms of the voting system, but even so, the

figures are going in the wrong direction for you, where as you were

building last time round? The thing we have done in this election is

putting people in the direction of stopping the Tories getting a huge

majority. That has to be reflected in maybe a dip in the National

polls. But in areas like Islington North where Caroline is campaigning,

people want a second referendum on Brexit... In other areas, it is not

unique. How big an issue is Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party because

that manifesto, as your colleagues, it could have been the Green party

manifesto. If you are going to go for a left of centre Progressive

Alliance, you will vote for the Labour Party. The only party you can

count on who will look after the environments, and Labour has a mixed

up policy on Brexit. Talking about cutting freedom of movement and not

being in the single market is what the Greens in Parliament will fight

for. We have promised everyone in the country a final say on the deal

that will come from the EU. Almost nobody under the age of 21 by the

time we exit the EU, will have had a say on that. That is a distinctive

offer, but you are hailing the Alliance as something that has been

adopted broadly. They have not taken up your cry on this issue, whether

it would have worked or not, we will never know. You are not contesting

five London seats. It is not being reciprocated in any formal way, why

bother gives the Liberal Democrats and Labour the free run? There were

more than six seats across London where this thing was considered. It

is a shame Labour didn't join in at a national level and stand aside in

the Isle of Wight. But in other places where we are doing it, these

are tiny majorities, where it does make sense for the progressive vote

to come behind the Labour candidate and I am proud of the Greens who

have done that. Is it a missed opportunity, white isn't Labour

working with the Greens because you could've maximised your seats? I am

worried about any potential for a lack of opposition for a

Conservative government so I am more open to working with the Greens than

others in my party. I have worked well with Caroline Lucas in our

opposition to Brexit, we share an all-party group. Having said that, I

am pleased to see the Greens stand down in places like Ealing, where I

do think you have strong MPs, you want that support. Therefore, there

is a continued discussion on where we can work together. Have you

talked to the Greens locally? Yes, we have talked to the Greens in the

London Borough of Haringey. But you wouldn't be in favour of that? The

election was called very quickly. This is a special election, enormous

things at stake. Apart from your offer on Brexit, what is it you

don't like about the Labour manifesto? There is definitely a

role for the Greens on the London assembly, challenging the mayor on

some of his broken promises on estates and renting. On tax, rail

nationalisation, when it comes to the salaries for the public sector,

anything you disagree with? We are in our 2015 manifesto and we are

flattered to see them taken up by the Labour Party. We are a distinct

party and we have a distinct offer in the selection, which is the final

combination on Brexit, and you won't find another party doing that. In

terms of the environment, could we say the Conservative Party is

environment light? I would not say it is light. Where the Green party

had difficulty making breakthrough, which is tribute to their

involvement in politics over the years, both the Conservative Party

and the Labour Party have taken on certain policies. Which one?

Immolation, one of the regrets, the whole business in the High Court

before the election was called, that will be a priority if we are

re-elected, we will get something on clean air. In general terms, do you

think the Conservative Party could do more and has gone backwards? No,

there is a huge amount on renewables, solar and wind energy.

In the last ten years there has been a change in the tax treatment in

relation to this. In many ways, a tribute to the impact the Green

party has had as a movement. I have spent the last five years fighting

the Conservative's road-building plans. We don't have a green

government. Everything they do is tiny and token. We need the Greens

in Parliament arguing for comprehensive things like a

sustainable transport policy and clean air act. Let's move on to that

issue. Let's move on to an issue

of particular interest to the Green party and one which campaigners say

should be a major concern for all political parties -

air quality in the capital. Our environment correspondent

Tom Edwards reports on what the parties are proposing

to tackle the problem, which affects many living in London

and might well influence A community in Kennington

demanding action on bad air. My name is Aoife, I am

seven years old... They want all parties

to sign their Clean Air pledge. I want to try and clean up

the pollution in the air so when I get older I won't have

lung disease or problems I feel that the bad air I will be

breathing in will make me ill. 45,000 vehicles a day use this

road, poor air quality Will it affect how you

vote in the election? There needs to be

a Clean Air agenda. We can't continue like

this, this is a killer. We are pretending it's not

there because you can't see it, ARCHIVE: If it weren't

for the smoke-laden fog outside, The last big political

intervention on air quality ARCHIVE: Here is the main source

of atmospheric pollution. The Clean Air Act banned coal

after the great smog, There are calls for new legislation

to tackle fumes from traffic. About 50% of nitrogen dioxide

is due to road traffic. The mayor says he can deal

with about half of that with his ultralow emission zone

where the polluter pays, but he'll need help from whoever

is elected here to deal Children here at the Royal Brompton

see the impact of London's high levels of pollution,

especially nitrogen dioxide. Experts say it slows lung growth

and poor air is shortening the lives These doctors want

action and this week, took their message to Downing

Street. It is about changing the fleet,

removing the vehicle fleet, removing the vehicles that are most

polluting, particularly the older diesel vehicles,

but making sure the newer vehicles As soon as I asked Sophie Walker,

who is my party leader, In Kennington, the Women's

Equality Party, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats and Labour

all pledge to clean up pollution. We really do want to see a diesel

scrappage scheme because we think getting diesel cars off our roads

is the most important thing we can do to improve the air quality,

particularly in London, particularly in places

like Kennington. What we will be setting

out in our manifesto are a national framework,

a national framework which doesn't just give local

authorities the responsibility, but actually make sure they are then

backed up with the competence We have to have a Clean Air Act

that is fit for the 21st century, that can deal with these poisonous,

tiny, tiny little particles that get deep into our lungs

and into our bloodstreams. The Conservatives didn't attend,

they would charge diesel drivers The real public health

issues are in areas, our main cities where there

are particular problems. That's where we should be

focusing our efforts. We don't want to see a national

programme of penalising motorists. Clean air campaigners say London

is now in the grip of a health emergency and say all parties should

make tackling it a priority. David Lambie, how would you get

diesel cars off the road. We have got to move to a scrappage scheme,

move away from diesel. The evidence has moved on. We understand a

particular problem with pollutants and particles in the lungs. Children

are dying in this city and I suspect in other major cities across the

country. That is why it is a national scheme. In a sense, the

running the mayor has done in London with the High Commission zones and

his toxicity charge have to become national and that is why we need a

new clean air act. As we got rid of smog in the past, we need to deal

with this and it needs a national framework. Do you agree that,

charging diesel drivers as a last resort, will not get diesel cars off

the road. Simon Burkett, my friend... Environmental science is

in a state of flux, because 15 years ago the government at the time was

saying go down the diesel route. We need a diesel scrappage scheme but

we need to recognise those who were in scent of eyes to go down the

diesel route and should be getting some compensation. You are

penalising drivers, and many of them would have bought diesel cars

thinking it was the right thing to do?

Yes, and the car-makers should pay. They should be the ones paying, we

shouldn't give them a bonus for a scrappage scheme. Diesel damaging

people's lungs was well established at the time. What is the choice,

children dying or looking at the car manufacturers, many who spun against

the evidence at the time, and saying, yes, actually, if we are

putting a framework together they have to take more of a burden than

the taxpayer so we can move forward and create an environment we can all

live in. I'm saying let back car manufacturers, let's not move away

from diesel -- that is what the 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.