:00:29. > :00:32.It's Sunday Morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.
:00:33. > :00:35.Labour attacks Conservative plans for social care and to means-test
:00:36. > :00:38.So can Jeremy Corbyn eat into the Tory lead
:00:39. > :00:44.Theresa May says her party's manifesto is all about fairness.
:00:45. > :00:48.We'll be speaking to a Conservative cabinet minister about the plans.
:00:49. > :00:51.The polls have always shown healthy leads for the Conservatives.
:00:52. > :00:56.But, now we've seen the manifestos, is Labour narrowing the gap?
:00:57. > :00:59.at the opposite ends of the Brexit spectrum.
:01:00. > :01:02.We're looking at the policies and chances of the Liberal Democrats
:01:03. > :01:16.And with me - as always - the best and the brightest political
:01:17. > :01:17.panel in the business: Sam Coates, Isabel Oakeshott
:01:18. > :01:19.and Steve Richards - they'll be tweeting throughout
:01:20. > :01:22.the programme, and you can get involved by using
:01:23. > :01:30.Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says pensioners will be up to ?330 a year
:01:31. > :01:42.worse off under plans outlined in the Conservative manifesto.
:01:43. > :01:48.The Work Pensions Secretary Damian Green has said his party will not
:01:49. > :01:52.rethink their plans to fund social care in England. Under the plans in
:01:53. > :01:59.the Conservative manifesto, nobody with assets of less than ?100,000,
:02:00. > :02:03.would have to pay for care. Labour has attacked the proposal, and John
:02:04. > :02:06.McDonnell, Labour's Shadow Chancellor, said this morning that
:02:07. > :02:10.there needs to be more cross-party consensus.
:02:11. > :02:12.That's why we supported Dilnot, but we also supported
:02:13. > :02:15.Because we've got to have something sustainable over generations,
:02:16. > :02:18.so that's why we've said to the Conservative Party,
:02:19. > :02:21.Let's go back to that cross-party approach that actually
:02:22. > :02:24.I just feel we've all been let down by what's come
:02:25. > :02:35.Sam, is Labour beginning to get their argument across? What we had
:02:36. > :02:39.last week was bluntly what felt like not very Lynton Crosby approved
:02:40. > :02:43.Conservative manifesto. What I mean by that is that it looks like there
:02:44. > :02:48.are things that will cause political difficulties for the party over this
:02:49. > :02:52.campaign. I've been talking to MPs and ministers who acknowledge that
:02:53. > :02:58.the social care plan is coming up on the doorstep. It has cut through
:02:59. > :03:01.very quickly, and it is worrying and deterring some voters. Not just
:03:02. > :03:13.pensioners, that people who are looking to inherit in the future.
:03:14. > :03:15.They are all asking how much they could lose that they wouldn't have
:03:16. > :03:18.lost before. A difficult question for the party to answer, given that
:03:19. > :03:23.they don't want to give too much away now. Was this a mistake, or a
:03:24. > :03:31.sign of the Conservatives' confidence? It has the hallmarks of
:03:32. > :03:34.something that has been cobbled together in a very unnaturally short
:03:35. > :03:39.time frame for putting a manifesto together. We have had mixed messages
:03:40. > :03:43.from the Tory MPs who have been out on the airwaves this morning as to
:03:44. > :03:48.whether they will consult on it whether it is just a starting point.
:03:49. > :03:54.That said, there is still three weeks to go, and most of the Tory
:03:55. > :03:58.party this morning feel this is a little light turbulence rather than
:03:59. > :04:02.anything that leaves the destination of victory in doubt. It it flips the
:04:03. > :04:06.normal politics. The Tories are going to make people who have a
:04:07. > :04:13.reasonable amount of assets pay for their social care. What is wrong
:04:14. > :04:16.with that? First, total credit for them for not pretending that all
:04:17. > :04:20.this can be done by magic, which is what normally happens in an
:04:21. > :04:25.election. The party will say, we will review this for the 95th time
:04:26. > :04:30.in the following Parliament, so they have no mandate to do anything and
:04:31. > :04:34.so do not do anything. It is courageous to do it. It is
:04:35. > :04:39.electorally risky, for the reasons that you suggest, that they pass the
:04:40. > :04:46.target their own natural supporter. And there is a sense that this is
:04:47. > :04:51.rushed through, in the frenzy to get it done in time. I think the ending
:04:52. > :04:56.of the pooling of risk and putting the entire burden on in inverted
:04:57. > :05:05.commas the victim, because you cannot insure Fritz, is against the
:05:06. > :05:08.spirit of a lot of the rest of the manifesto, and will give them huge
:05:09. > :05:17.problems if they try to implement it in the next Parliament. Let's have a
:05:18. > :05:22.look at the polls. Nearly five weeks ago, on Tuesday the 18th of April,
:05:23. > :05:27.Theresa May called the election. At that point, this was the median
:05:28. > :05:32.average of the recent polls. The Conservatives had an 18 point lead
:05:33. > :05:41.over Labour on 25%. Ukip and the Liberal Democrats were both on 18%.
:05:42. > :05:46.A draft of Labour's manifesto was leaked to the press. In the
:05:47. > :05:49.intervening weeks, support for the Conservatives and Labour had
:05:50. > :05:55.increased, that it had decreased for the Lib Dems and Ukip. Last Tuesday
:05:56. > :06:00.came the launch of the official Labour manifesto. By that time,
:06:01. > :06:06.Labour support had gone up by another 2%. The Lib Dems and Ukip
:06:07. > :06:10.had slipped back slightly. Later in the week came the manifestos from
:06:11. > :06:15.the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. This morning, for more polls. This
:06:16. > :06:23.is how the parties currently stand on average. Labour are now on 34%,
:06:24. > :06:27.up 4% since the launch of their manifesto. The Conservatives are
:06:28. > :06:33.down two points since last Tuesday. Ukip and the Lib Dems are both
:06:34. > :06:39.unchanged on 8% and 5%. You can find this poll tracker on the BBC
:06:40. > :06:44.website, see how it was calculated, and see the results of national
:06:45. > :06:47.polls over the last two years. So Isabel, is this the Tories' wobbly
:06:48. > :06:52.weekend or the start of the narrowing? This is still an
:06:53. > :06:59.extremely healthy lead for the Tories. At the start of this
:07:00. > :07:04.campaign, most commentators expected to things to happen. First, the Lib
:07:05. > :07:10.Dems would have a significant surge. That hasn't happened. Second, Labour
:07:11. > :07:14.would crash and plummet. Instead they are in the health of the low
:07:15. > :07:21.30s. I wonder if that tells you something about the tribal nature of
:07:22. > :07:26.the Labour vote, and the continuing problems with the Tory brand. I
:07:27. > :07:31.would say that a lot of Tory MPs wouldn't be too unhappy if Labour's
:07:32. > :07:37.result isn't quite as bad as has been anticipated. They don't want
:07:38. > :07:44.Corbyn to go anywhere. If the latest polls were to be the result on June
:07:45. > :07:49.the 8th, Mr Corbyn may not be in a rush to go anywhere. I still think
:07:50. > :07:54.it depends on the number of seats. If there is a landslide win, I
:07:55. > :07:59.think, one way or another, he will not stay. If it is much narrower, he
:08:00. > :08:05.has grounds for arguing he has done better than anticipated. The polls
:08:06. > :08:10.are very interesting. People compare this with 83. In 83, the Tory lead
:08:11. > :08:23.widened consistently throughout the campaign. There was the SDP -
:08:24. > :08:25.Liberal Alliance doing well in the polls. Here, the Lib Dems don't seem
:08:26. > :08:28.to be doing that. So the parallels with 83 don't really stack up. But
:08:29. > :08:31.let's see what happens. Still early days for the a lot of people are
:08:32. > :08:36.saying this is the result of the social care policy. We don't really
:08:37. > :08:39.know that. How do you beat them? In the last week or so, there's been
:08:40. > :08:45.the decision by some to hold their nose and vote Labour, who haven't
:08:46. > :08:49.done so before. Probably the biggest thing in this election is how the
:08:50. > :08:56.Right has reunited behind Theresa May. That figure for Ukip is
:08:57. > :09:02.incredibly small. She has brought those Ukip voters behind her, and
:09:03. > :09:06.that could be the decisive factor in many seats, rather than the Labour
:09:07. > :09:11.share of the boat picking up a bit or down a bit, depending on how
:09:12. > :09:14.turbulent the Tory manifesto makes it. Thank you for that.
:09:15. > :09:17.We've finally got our hands on the manifestos of the two main
:09:18. > :09:19.parties and, for once, voters can hardly complain that
:09:20. > :09:23.So, just how big is the choice on offer to the public?
:09:24. > :09:25.Since the Liberal Democrats and SNP have ruled out
:09:26. > :09:27.coalitions after June 8th, Adam Fleming compares the Labour
:09:28. > :09:30.Welcome to the BBC's election centre.
:09:31. > :09:34.Four minutes from now, when Big Ben strikes 10.00,
:09:35. > :09:38.we can legally reveal the contents of this, our exit poll.
:09:39. > :09:40.18 days to go, and the BBC's election night studio
:09:41. > :09:50.This is where David Dimbleby will sit, although there is no chair yet.
:09:51. > :09:53.The parties' policies are now the finished product.
:09:54. > :09:56.In Bradford, Jeremy Corbyn vowed a bigger state,
:09:57. > :09:59.the end of austerity, no more tuition fees.
:10:00. > :10:07.The Tory campaign, by contrast, is built on one word - fear.
:10:08. > :10:15.Down the road in Halifax, Theresa May kept a promise to get
:10:16. > :10:18.immigration down to the tens of thousands, and talked
:10:19. > :10:21.of leadership and tough choices in uncertain times.
:10:22. > :10:27.Strengthen my hand as I fight for Britain, and stand with me
:10:28. > :10:33.And, with confidence in ourselves and a unity
:10:34. > :10:41.of purpose in our country, let us go forward together.
:10:42. > :10:44.Let's look at the Labour and Conservative
:10:45. > :10:50.On tax, Labour would introduce a 50p rate for top earners.
:10:51. > :11:14.The Conservatives ditched their triple lock, giving them
:11:15. > :11:16.freedom to put up income tax and national insurance,
:11:17. > :11:18.although they want to keep the overall tax burden the same.
:11:19. > :11:21.Labour offered a major overhaul of the country's wiring,
:11:22. > :11:23.with a pledge to renationalise infrastructure, like power,
:11:24. > :11:26.The Conservatives said that would cost a fortune,
:11:27. > :11:28.but provided few details for the cost of their policies.
:11:29. > :11:30.Labour have simply become a shambles, and, as yesterday's
:11:31. > :11:32.manifesto showed, their numbers simply do not add up.
:11:33. > :11:35.What have they got planned for health and social care?
:11:36. > :11:39.The Conservatives offered more cash for the NHS,
:11:40. > :11:42.reaching an extra ?8 billion a year by the end of the parliament.
:11:43. > :11:46.Labour promised an extra ?30 billion over the course of the same period,
:11:47. > :11:52.plus free hospital parking and more pay for staff.
:11:53. > :11:59.The Conservatives would increase the value of assets you could
:12:00. > :12:02.protect from the cost of social care to ?100,000, but your home would be
:12:03. > :12:04.added to the assessment of your wealth,
:12:05. > :12:08.There was a focus on one group of voters in particular
:12:09. > :12:13.Labour would keep the triple lock, which guarantees that pensions go up
:12:14. > :12:19.The Tories would keep the increase in line
:12:20. > :12:23.with inflation or earnings, a double lock.
:12:24. > :12:25.The Conservatives would end of winter fuel payments
:12:26. > :12:29.for the richest, although we don't know exactly who that would be,
:12:30. > :12:37.This is a savage attack on vulnerable pensioners,
:12:38. > :12:41.particularly those who are just about managing.
:12:42. > :12:45.It is disgraceful, and we are calling upon the Conservative Party
:12:46. > :12:51.When it comes to leaving the European Union, Labour say
:12:52. > :12:55.they'd sweep away the government's negotiating strategy,
:12:56. > :12:57.secure a better deal and straightaway guaranteed the rights
:12:58. > :13:03.The Tories say a big majority would remove political uncertainty
:13:04. > :13:15.Jeremy Vine's due here in two and a half weeks.
:13:16. > :13:21.I'm joined now by David Gauke, who is Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
:13:22. > :13:28.Welcome back to the programme. The Tories once promised a cap on social
:13:29. > :13:36.care costs. Why have you abandoned that? We've looked at it, and there
:13:37. > :13:41.are couple of proposals with the Dilnot proposal. Much of the benefit
:13:42. > :13:45.would go to those inheriting larger estates. The second point was it was
:13:46. > :13:51.hoped that a cap would stimulate the larger insurance products that would
:13:52. > :13:56.fill the gap, but there is no sign that those products are emerging.
:13:57. > :14:01.Without a cap, you will not get one. We have come forward with a new
:14:02. > :14:05.proposal which we think is fairer, provide more money for social care,
:14:06. > :14:10.which is very important and is one of the big issues we face as a
:14:11. > :14:15.country. It is right that we face those big issues. Social care is
:14:16. > :14:23.one, getting a good Brexit deal is another. This demonstrates that
:14:24. > :14:25.Theresa May has an ambition to lead a government that addresses those
:14:26. > :14:31.big long-term issues. Looking at social care. If you have assets,
:14:32. > :14:35.including your home, of over ?100,000, you have to pay for all
:14:36. > :14:40.your social care costs. Is that fair? It is right that for the
:14:41. > :14:46.services that are provided to you, that that is paid out of your
:14:47. > :14:49.assets, subject to two really important qualifications. First, you
:14:50. > :14:57.shouldn't have your entire estate wiped out. At the moment, if you are
:14:58. > :15:02.in residential care, it can be wiped out ?223,000. If you are in
:15:03. > :15:09.domiciliary care, it can be out to ?23,000, plus you're domiciliary.
:15:10. > :15:13.Nobody should be forced to sell their house in their lifetime if
:15:14. > :15:15.they or their spouse needs long-term care. Again, we have protected that
:15:16. > :15:25.in the proposals we set out. But the state will basically take a
:15:26. > :15:30.chunk of your house when you die and they sell. In an essence it is a
:15:31. > :15:33.stealth inheritance tax on everything above ?100,000. But we
:15:34. > :15:37.have those two important protections. I am including that. It
:15:38. > :15:42.is a stealth inheritance tax. We have to face up to the fact that
:15:43. > :15:46.there are significant costs that we face as a country in terms of health
:15:47. > :15:51.and social careful. Traditionally, politicians don't address those
:15:52. > :15:56.issues, particularly during election campaigns. I think it is too Theresa
:15:57. > :16:00.May's credit that we are being straightforward with the British
:16:01. > :16:03.people and saying that we face this long-term challenge. Our manifesto
:16:04. > :16:07.was about the big challenges that we face, one of which was
:16:08. > :16:11.intergenerational fairness and one of which was delivering a strong
:16:12. > :16:17.economy and making sure that we can do that. But in the end, someone is
:16:18. > :16:21.going to have to pay for this. It is going to have to be a balance
:16:22. > :16:24.between the general taxpayer and those receiving the services. We
:16:25. > :16:27.think we have struck the right balance with this proposal. But it
:16:28. > :16:32.is entirely on the individual. People watching this programme, if
:16:33. > :16:39.they have a fair amount of assets, not massive, including the home,
:16:40. > :16:43.they will need to pay for everything themselves until their assets are
:16:44. > :16:48.reduced to ?100,000. It is not a balance, you're putting everything
:16:49. > :16:54.on the original two individual. At the moment, for those in residential
:16:55. > :16:58.care, they have to pay everything until 20 3000. -- everything on the
:16:59. > :17:02.individual. But now they will face more. Those in individual care are
:17:03. > :17:06.seeing their protection going up by four times as much, so that is
:17:07. > :17:10.eliminating unfairness. Why should those in residential care be in a
:17:11. > :17:16.worse position than those receiving domiciliary care? But as I say, that
:17:17. > :17:19.money has to come from somewhere and we are sitting at a proper plan for
:17:20. > :17:23.it. While also made the point that we are more likely to be able to
:17:24. > :17:27.have a properly functioning social care market if we have a strong
:17:28. > :17:30.economy, and to have a strong economy we need to deliver a good
:17:31. > :17:35.deal on Brexit and I think Theresa May is capable of doing that. You
:17:36. > :17:39.have said that before. But if you have a heart attack in old age, the
:17:40. > :17:43.NHS will take care of you. If you have dementia, you now have to pay
:17:44. > :17:47.for the care of yourself. Is that they are? It is already the case
:17:48. > :17:51.that if you have long-term care costs come up as I say, if you are
:17:52. > :17:57.in residential care you pay for all of it until the last ?23,000, but if
:17:58. > :18:01.you are in domiciliary care, excluding your housing assets, but
:18:02. > :18:07.all of your other assets get used up until you are down to ?23,000 a
:18:08. > :18:14.year. And I think it is right at this point that a party that aspires
:18:15. > :18:17.to run this country for the long-term, to address the long-term
:18:18. > :18:22.challenges we have is a country, for us to be clear that we need to
:18:23. > :18:28.deliver this. Because if it is not paid for it this way, if it goes and
:18:29. > :18:32.falls on the general taxpayer, the people who feel hard pressed by the
:18:33. > :18:36.amount of income tax and VAT they pay, frankly we have to say to them,
:18:37. > :18:40.those taxes will go up if we do not address it. But they might go up
:18:41. > :18:47.anyway. The average house price in your part of the country is just shy
:18:48. > :18:51.of ?430,000, so if you told your own constituents that they might have to
:18:52. > :18:56.spend ?300,000 of their assets on social care before the state steps
:18:57. > :19:01.in to help...? As I said earlier, nobody will be forced to pay during
:19:02. > :19:07.their lifetime. Nobody will be forced to sell their houses. We are
:19:08. > :19:11.providing that protection because of the third premium. Which makes it a
:19:12. > :19:17.kind of death tax, doesn't it? Which is what you use to rail against.
:19:18. > :19:21.What it is people paying for the services they have paid out of their
:19:22. > :19:25.assets. But with that very important protection that nobody is going to
:19:26. > :19:30.be wiped out in the way that has happened up until now, down to the
:19:31. > :19:34.last three years. But when Labour propose this, George Osborne called
:19:35. > :19:38.it a death tax and you are now proposing a stealth death tax
:19:39. > :19:44.inheritance tax. Labour's proposals were very different. It is the same
:19:45. > :19:51.effect. Labour's were hitting everyone with an inheritance tax. We
:19:52. > :19:54.are saying that there are -- that there is a state contribution but
:19:55. > :20:00.the public receiving the services will have to pay for it out of
:20:01. > :20:04.assets, which have grown substantially. And which they might
:20:05. > :20:08.now lose to social care. But I would say that people in Hertfordshire pay
:20:09. > :20:13.a lot in income tracks, national insurance and VAT, and this is my
:20:14. > :20:17.bet is going to have to come from somewhere. Well, they are now going
:20:18. > :20:22.to pay a lot of tax and pay for social care. Turning to immigration,
:20:23. > :20:26.you promised to get net migration down to 100,020 ten. You failed. You
:20:27. > :20:31.promised again in 2015 and you are feeling again. Why should voters
:20:32. > :20:35.trust you a third time? It is very clear that only the Conservative
:20:36. > :20:41.Party has an ambition to control immigration and to bring it down. An
:20:42. > :20:44.ambition you have failed to deliver. There are, of course, factors that
:20:45. > :20:48.come into play. For example a couple of years ago we were going through a
:20:49. > :20:51.period when the UK was creating huge numbers of jobs but none of our
:20:52. > :20:55.European neighbours were doing anything like it. Not surprisingly,
:20:56. > :21:02.that feeds through into the immigration numbers that we see. But
:21:03. > :21:07.it is right that we have that ambition because I do not believe it
:21:08. > :21:11.is sustainable to have hundreds of thousands net migration, you're
:21:12. > :21:15.after year after year, and only Theresa May of the Conservative
:21:16. > :21:19.Party is willing to address that. It has gone from being a target to an
:21:20. > :21:23.ambition, and I am pretty sure in a couple of years it will become an
:21:24. > :21:28.untimed aspiration. Is net migration now higher or lower than when you
:21:29. > :21:34.came to power in 2010? I think it is higher at the moment. Let's look at
:21:35. > :21:39.the figures. And there they are. You are right, it is higher, so after
:21:40. > :21:46.six years in power, promising to get it down to 100,000, it is higher. So
:21:47. > :21:50.if that is an ambition and you have not succeeded. We have to accept
:21:51. > :21:55.that there are a number of factors. It continues to be the case that the
:21:56. > :21:58.UK economy is growing and creating a lot of jobs, which is undoubtedly
:21:59. > :22:02.drawing people. But you made the promise on the basis that would not
:22:03. > :22:05.happen? We are certainly outperforming other countries in a
:22:06. > :22:10.way that we could not have predicted in 2010. That is one of the factors.
:22:11. > :22:13.But if you look at a lot of the steps that we have taken over the
:22:14. > :22:19.course of the last seven years, dealing with bogus students, for
:22:20. > :22:22.example, tightening up a lot of the rules. You can say all that but it
:22:23. > :22:26.has made no difference to the headline figure. Clearly it would
:22:27. > :22:31.have gone up by much more and we not taken the steps. But as I say, we
:22:32. > :22:37.cannot for ever, it seems to me, have net migration numbers in the
:22:38. > :22:41.hundreds of thousands. If we get that good Brexit deal, one of the
:22:42. > :22:46.things we can do is tighten up in terms of access here. You say that
:22:47. > :22:50.but you have always had control of non-EU migration. You cannot blame
:22:51. > :22:53.the EU for that. You control immigration from outside the EU.
:22:54. > :23:00.Have you ever managed to get even that below 100,000? Well, no doubt
:23:01. > :23:05.you will present the numbers now. You haven't. You have got down a bit
:23:06. > :23:10.from 2010, I will give you that, but even non-EU migration is still a lot
:23:11. > :23:15.more than 100000 and that is the thing you control. It is 164,000 on
:23:16. > :23:18.the latest figures. There is no point in saying to the voters that
:23:19. > :23:21.when we get control of the EU migration you will get it down when
:23:22. > :23:27.the bit you have control over, you have failed to get that down into
:23:28. > :23:31.the tens of thousands. The general trend has gone up. Non-EU migration
:23:32. > :23:37.we have brought down over the last few years. Not by much, not by
:23:38. > :23:42.anywhere near your 100,000 target. But we clearly have more tools
:23:43. > :23:47.available to us, following Brexit. At this rate it will be around 2030
:23:48. > :23:50.before you get non-EU migration down to 100,000. We clearly have more
:23:51. > :23:54.tools available to us and I return to the point I made. In the last six
:23:55. > :23:58.or seven years, particularly the last four or five, we have seen the
:23:59. > :24:02.UK jobs market growing substantially. It is extraordinary
:24:03. > :24:05.how many more jobs we have. So you'll only promised the migration
:24:06. > :24:09.target because you did not think you were going to run the economy well?
:24:10. > :24:13.That is what you are telling me. I don't think anyone expected us to
:24:14. > :24:17.create quite a number of jobs that we have done over the last six or
:24:18. > :24:20.seven years. At the time when other European countries have not been.
:24:21. > :24:26.George Osborne says your target is economically illiterate. I disagree
:24:27. > :24:33.with George on that. He is my old boss but I disagree with him on that
:24:34. > :24:36.point. And the reason I say that is looking at the economics and the
:24:37. > :24:42.wider social impact, I don't think it is sustainable for us to have
:24:43. > :24:45.hundreds of thousands, year after year after year. Let me ask you one
:24:46. > :24:49.other thing because you are the chief secretary. Your promising that
:24:50. > :24:54.spending on health will be ?8 billion higher in five use time than
:24:55. > :24:56.it is now. How do you pay for that? From a strong economy, two years ago
:24:57. > :25:02.we had a similar conversation because at that point we said that
:25:03. > :25:07.we would increase spending by ?8 billion. And we are more than on
:25:08. > :25:11.track to deliver it, because it is a priority area for us. Where will the
:25:12. > :25:16.money come from? It will be a priority area for us. We will find
:25:17. > :25:21.the money. So you have not been able to show us a revenue line where this
:25:22. > :25:25.?8 billion will come from. We have a record of making promises to spend
:25:26. > :25:30.more on the NHS and delivering. One thing I would say is that the only
:25:31. > :25:35.way you can spend more money on the NHS is if you have a strong economy,
:25:36. > :25:38.and the biggest risk... But that is true of anything. I am trying to
:25:39. > :25:43.find out where the ?8 billion come from, where will it come from? Know
:25:44. > :25:46.you were saying that perhaps you might increase taxes, ticking off
:25:47. > :25:53.the lock, so people are right to be suspicious. But you will not tell us
:25:54. > :25:57.where the ?8 billion will come from. Andrew, a strong economy is key to
:25:58. > :26:01.delivering more NHS money. That does not tell us where the money is
:26:02. > :26:05.coming from. The biggest risk to a strong economy would be a bad
:26:06. > :26:09.Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn would deliver. And we have a record of
:26:10. > :26:13.putting more money into the NHS. I think that past performance we can
:26:14. > :26:15.take forward. Thank you for joining us.
:26:16. > :26:17.So, the Conservatives have been taking a bit of flak
:26:18. > :26:21.But Conservative big guns have been out and about this morning taking
:26:22. > :26:25.Here's Boris Johnson on ITV's Peston programme earlier today:
:26:26. > :26:29.What we're trying to do is to address what I think
:26:30. > :26:32.everybody, all serious demographers acknowledge will be the massive
:26:33. > :26:36.problem of the cost of social care long-term.
:26:37. > :26:39.This is a responsible, grown-up, conservative approach,
:26:40. > :26:42.trying to deal with a long-term problem in a way that is equitable,
:26:43. > :26:45.allows people to pass on a very substantial sum,
:26:46. > :26:47.still, to their kids, and takes away the fear
:26:48. > :26:53.Joining me now from Liverpool is Labour's Shadow Chief Secretary
:26:54. > :27:05.Petered out, welcome to the programme. Let's start with social
:27:06. > :27:09.care. The Tories are saying that if you have ?100,000 or more in assets,
:27:10. > :27:14.you should pay for your own social care. What is wrong with that? Well,
:27:15. > :27:19.I think the issue at the end of the day is the question of fairness. Is
:27:20. > :27:23.it fair? And what we're trying to do is to get to a situation where we
:27:24. > :27:29.have, for example, the Dilnot report, which identified that you
:27:30. > :27:32.actually have cap on your spending on social care. We are trying to get
:27:33. > :27:38.to a position where it is a reasonable and fair approach to
:27:39. > :27:42.expenditure. But you will know that a lot of people, particularly in the
:27:43. > :27:47.south of country, London and the south-east, and the adjacent areas
:27:48. > :27:50.around it, they have benefited from huge house price inflation. They
:27:51. > :27:55.have seen their homes go up in value, if and when they sell, they
:27:56. > :28:01.are not taxed on that increase. Why should these people not pay for
:28:02. > :28:05.their own social care if they have the assets to do so? They will be
:28:06. > :28:10.paying for some of their social care but you cannot take social care and
:28:11. > :28:12.health care separately. It has to be an integrated approach. So for
:28:13. > :28:17.example if you do have dementia, you're more likely to be in an
:28:18. > :28:21.elderly person's home for longer and you most probably have been in care
:28:22. > :28:25.for a longer period of time. On the other hand, you might have, if you
:28:26. > :28:28.have had a stroke, there may be continuing care needs paid for by
:28:29. > :28:32.the NHS. So at the end of the date it is trying to get a reasonable
:28:33. > :28:41.balance and just to pluck a figure of ?100,000 out of thin air is not
:28:42. > :28:46.sensible. You will have heard me say about David Gold that the house
:28:47. > :28:50.prices in his area, about 450,000 or so, not quite that, and that people
:28:51. > :28:55.may have to spend quite a lot of that on social care to get down to
:28:56. > :28:59.?100,000. But in your area, the average house price is only
:29:00. > :29:05.?149,000, so your people would not have to pay anything like as much
:29:06. > :29:11.before they hit the ?100,000 minimum. I hesitate to say that but
:29:12. > :29:14.is that not almost a socialist approach to social care that if you
:29:15. > :29:19.are in the affluent Home Counties with a big asset, you pay more, and
:29:20. > :29:22.if you are in an area that is not so affluent and your house is not worth
:29:23. > :29:27.very much, you pay a lot less. What is wrong with that principle? I
:29:28. > :29:31.think the problem I am trying to get to is this issue about equity across
:29:32. > :29:37.the piece. At the end of the day, what we want is a system whereby it
:29:38. > :29:41.is capped at a particular level, and the Dilnot report, after much
:29:42. > :29:45.examination, said we should have a cap on care costs at ?72,000. The
:29:46. > :29:49.Conservatives decided to ditch that and come up with another policy
:29:50. > :29:53.which by all accounts seems to be even more Draconian. At the end of
:29:54. > :30:02.the day it is trying to get social care and an NHS care in a much more
:30:03. > :30:05.fluid way. We had offered the Conservatives to have a bipartisan
:30:06. > :30:10.approach to this. David just said that this is a long term. You do not
:30:11. > :30:16.pick a figure out of thin air and use that as a long-term strategy.
:30:17. > :30:21.The Conservatives are now saying they will increase health spending
:30:22. > :30:26.over the next five years in real terms. You will increase health
:30:27. > :30:32.spending. In what way is your approach to health spending better
:30:33. > :30:38.than the Tories' now? We are contributing an extra 7.2 billion to
:30:39. > :30:42.the NHS and social care over the next few years. But you just don't
:30:43. > :30:47.put money into the NHS or social care. It has to be an integrated
:30:48. > :30:52.approach to social and health care. What we've got is just more of the
:30:53. > :30:57.same. What we don't want to do is just say, we ring-fenced an out for
:30:58. > :31:06.here or there. What you have to do is try to get that... Let me ask you
:31:07. > :31:10.again. In terms of the amount of resource that is going to be devoted
:31:11. > :31:16.in the next five years, and resource does matter for the NHS, in what way
:31:17. > :31:20.are your plans different now from the Conservative plans? The key is
:31:21. > :31:26.how you use that resource. By just putting money in, you've got to say,
:31:27. > :31:32.if we are going to put that money on, how do we use it? As somebody
:31:33. > :31:36.who has worked in social care for 40 years, you have to have a different
:31:37. > :31:41.approach to how you use that money. The money we are putting in, 7.7,
:31:42. > :31:46.may be similar in cash terms to what the Tories claim they are putting
:31:47. > :32:00.in, but it's not how much you put in per se, it is how you use it. You
:32:01. > :32:02.are going to get rid of car parking charges in hospital, and you are
:32:03. > :32:05.going to increase pay by taking the cap on pay off. So it doesn't
:32:06. > :32:08.necessarily follow that the money, under your way of doing it, will
:32:09. > :32:11.follow the front line. What you need in the NHS is a system that is
:32:12. > :32:19.capable of dealing with the patience you have. What we have now is on at
:32:20. > :32:29.five Asian of the NHS. Staff leaving, not being paid properly. So
:32:30. > :32:32.pay and the NHS go hand in hand. Let's move onto another area of
:32:33. > :32:38.policy where there is some confusion. Who speaks for the Labour
:32:39. > :32:45.Party on nuclear weapons? Is it Emily Thornbury, or Nia Griffith,
:32:46. > :32:49.defence spokesperson? The Labour manifesto. It is clear. We are
:32:50. > :33:00.committed to the nuclear deterrent, and that is the definitive... Is it?
:33:01. > :33:04.Emily Thornbury said that Trident could be scrapped in the defence
:33:05. > :33:09.review you would have immediately after taking power. On LBC on Friday
:33:10. > :33:15.night. She didn't, actually. I listened to that. What she actually
:33:16. > :33:19.said is, as part of a Labour government coming in, a new
:33:20. > :33:24.government, there is always a defence review. But not the concept
:33:25. > :33:31.of Trident in its substance. She said there would be a review in
:33:32. > :33:35.terms of, and this is in our manifesto. When you reduce
:33:36. > :33:41.something, you review how it is operated. The review could scrap
:33:42. > :33:45.Trident. It won't scrap Trident. The review is in the context of how you
:33:46. > :33:51.protect it from cyber attacks. This will issue was seized upon that she
:33:52. > :33:57.was saying that we would have another review of Trident or Labour
:33:58. > :34:04.would ditch it. That is nonsense. You will have seen some reports that
:34:05. > :34:08.MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn in the early 90s because of his
:34:09. > :34:16.links to Irish republicanism. This has caused some people, his links to
:34:17. > :34:23.the IRA and Sinn Fein, it has caused some concern. Could you just listen
:34:24. > :34:30.to this clip and react. Do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn
:34:31. > :34:34.all bombing. But do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn what was done
:34:35. > :34:39.with the British Army as well as both sides as well. What happened in
:34:40. > :34:45.Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well. Do you distinguish between
:34:46. > :34:52.state forces, what the British Army did and the IRA? Well, in a sense,
:34:53. > :34:57.the treatment of IRA prisoners which made them into virtual political
:34:58. > :35:01.prisoners suggested that the British government and the state saw some
:35:02. > :35:09.kind of almost equivalent in it. My point is that the whole violence if
:35:10. > :35:15.you was terrible, was appalling, and came out of a process that had been
:35:16. > :35:20.allowed to fester in Northern Ireland for a very long time. That
:35:21. > :35:25.was from about two years ago. Can you explain why the Leader of the
:35:26. > :35:29.Labour Party, Her Majesty 's opposition, the man who would be our
:35:30. > :35:35.next Prime Minister, finds it so hard to condemn IRA arming? I think
:35:36. > :35:39.it has to be within the context that Jeremy Corbyn for many years trying
:35:40. > :35:48.to move the peace protest... Process along. So why wouldn't you condemn
:35:49. > :35:55.IRA bombing? Again, that was an issue, a traumatic event in Irish -
:35:56. > :36:01.British relations that went on for 30 years. It is a complicated
:36:02. > :36:06.matter. Bombing is not that complicated. If you are a man of
:36:07. > :36:10.peace, surely you would condemn the bomb and the bullet? Let me say
:36:11. > :36:16.this, I condemn the bomb and the bullet. Why can't your leader? You
:36:17. > :36:21.would have to ask Jeremy Corbyn, but that is in the context of what he
:36:22. > :36:22.was trying to do over a 25 year period to move the priest process
:36:23. > :36:26.along. Thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35,
:36:27. > :36:28.you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:36:29. > :36:30.in Scotland and Wales. Coming up here in 20
:36:31. > :36:32.minutes, the Week Ahead. First, though,
:36:33. > :36:43.the Sunday Politics where you are. A double-header here
:36:44. > :36:47.in the capital today. We're looking at Ukip
:36:48. > :36:56.and the Liberal Democrats - third and fourth in London
:36:57. > :36:58.in the general elections Its prime goal
:36:59. > :37:01.achieved, what future? Ukip just doesn't do low drama -
:37:02. > :37:11.whether it's referendum campaigns... Ukip's Steven Woolfe will be kept
:37:12. > :37:19.in hospital for another two days, following what Nigel Farage called
:37:20. > :37:22."an altercation" with fellow After just 18 days in charge,
:37:23. > :37:28.it's been reported tonight that the Ukip leader,
:37:29. > :37:32.Diane James, is set to stand down. Ukip's election story
:37:33. > :37:37.is also a fascinating one. At the 2015 general election,
:37:38. > :37:39.they got the third highest number of votes in London, up from
:37:40. > :37:45.60,000 in 2010 to nearly 300,000 It still wasn't enough to win
:37:46. > :37:50.them a seat in London, but after disastrous council
:37:51. > :37:53.election at the last local elections outside of London,
:37:54. > :37:56.the party's not standing It is a strategic decision,
:37:57. > :38:03.that actually, we want to ensure I think all parties were caught
:38:04. > :38:08.a little bit on the hop with this snap election,
:38:09. > :38:10.so what we are doing is concentrating in those areas
:38:11. > :38:14.where there is either a strong Remain candidate,
:38:15. > :38:17.or we know we have very good The party manifesto is due out this
:38:18. > :38:22.week, but so far their high-profile policy announcements include pledges
:38:23. > :38:27.to ban the burqa and sharia courts, establish a one in, one
:38:28. > :38:31.out immigration policy, a ?10 billion a year cut
:38:32. > :38:34.in the foreign aid budget, and to prevent all residential
:38:35. > :38:38.development on the green belt. There are a number of issues that
:38:39. > :38:41.motivated people to vote to leave, and probably one
:38:42. > :38:44.of those was immigration. We have a very strong
:38:45. > :38:46.and robust immigration policy, which we think will appeal
:38:47. > :38:49.to people, because it is about tackling those numbers
:38:50. > :38:53.of people coming here. But if London voters can't pick
:38:54. > :38:55.Ukip in certain seats, All the evidence from polling
:38:56. > :39:01.suggests that the Ukip vote is transferring insignificant chunks
:39:02. > :39:08.from its previous vote for Ukip is transferring in significant
:39:09. > :39:11.chunks from its previous vote for Ukip to the Conservatives,
:39:12. > :39:14.and that begs all sorts of questions in constituencies where,
:39:15. > :39:17.if you add a sizeable chunk of the Ukip vote to the previous
:39:18. > :39:19.Conservative vote, could that overhaul a Labour
:39:20. > :39:22.or other candidate? Taking a seat like Ealing Central
:39:23. > :39:25.and Acton, a key Labour marginal with a majority just shy of 300,
:39:26. > :39:29.and which Ukip are not contesting. If those voters turn
:39:30. > :39:31.to the Conservatives, And that's exactly what's happening
:39:32. > :39:36.in this Ukip heartland This time, I shall vote
:39:37. > :39:43.Conservative, because I think it's essential that we get a strong
:39:44. > :39:49.mandate to get a good Brexit. Since Farage has gone,
:39:50. > :39:56.and it seems like they've had a lot of trouble within the party,
:39:57. > :39:59.I don't think they are Really, if you want to go
:40:00. > :40:03.with the Brexit, really, you've got However, there are some who believe
:40:04. > :40:08.party still has a role to play. There's only one to be voting for -
:40:09. > :40:11.and I have to speak Because I think they are the only
:40:12. > :40:16.ones who's going to force these Because we are losing our
:40:17. > :40:21.identity in this country. People who's bred and born here,
:40:22. > :40:23.they can't get a house. But having campaigned
:40:24. > :40:29.so hard to leave the EU, this time it's the voters that leave
:40:30. > :40:32.Ukip who could prove equally I'm joined by London Assembly
:40:33. > :40:56.member Peter Whittle, Welcome to you. Three weeks back I
:40:57. > :41:02.asked you how many candidates would stand, and you said you were pretty
:41:03. > :41:06.well covered. I think we took from that nearly all, most. A third you
:41:07. > :41:11.haven't been able to find candidates. It's not a question of
:41:12. > :41:17.that. We said to branches that they could decide what they wanted to do
:41:18. > :41:21.in this election, and they took us at our word. I would have liked to
:41:22. > :41:26.have seen more in London, but we have 48 out of the seats in London.
:41:27. > :41:32.These are very unusual circumstances for this election. Not just in
:41:33. > :41:36.London but across the country. People we saw in the film are
:41:37. > :41:41.lending their vote to Conservatives, I would say. You left it to
:41:42. > :41:46.constituency level, because that is what you do. And in many places,
:41:47. > :41:51.suitable people didn't come forward. That shows you the state of the
:41:52. > :41:55.party in London right now. They are able to choose, and in a number of
:41:56. > :42:03.cases, suitable people didn't come forward. No. In many cases, they
:42:04. > :42:07.wanted to not challenge someone who was a Brexiteer. That was the whole
:42:08. > :42:12.point. That has been the case across the country. We are still standing
:42:13. > :42:18.in the vast majority of seats across the country. People say we are not
:42:19. > :42:25.strong in London. We have two AMs in the London assembly. We didn't have
:42:26. > :42:28.any for a while. Now we are back. People might say you've had a period
:42:29. > :42:38.of strength but it is deserting you rapidly. People say about us, a lot
:42:39. > :42:45.of people want us to go. We are not going anywhere. We are here to stay.
:42:46. > :42:50.We are very strong in certain parts, especially to the east of London,
:42:51. > :42:55.places like Dagenham. We heard there from the good people of Hornchurch.
:42:56. > :43:02.In a number of your associations, people have decided it is not good
:43:03. > :43:06.to challenge a Conservative Brexiteer, who are better able to
:43:07. > :43:13.deal with the process under Theresa May. Thank you for what you have
:43:14. > :43:17.done, but it's over. People do put country before party. The fact is
:43:18. > :43:22.that those voters will come back when they see what happens with
:43:23. > :43:24.Theresa May, which is that there will be softening and backsliding.
:43:25. > :43:33.You are absolutely convinced about that. Totally. For one good reason -
:43:34. > :43:39.when the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, she talked very tough on
:43:40. > :43:43.things like migration. She then presided over the biggest hike in
:43:44. > :43:48.migration we've seen in our history. Why should we trust what Theresa May
:43:49. > :43:52.is going to do with this? The bigger the majority she gets, the softer
:43:53. > :43:57.she will get. Then you will see people coming back to us. We have
:43:58. > :44:02.our manifesto coming out on Wednesday. All of the ideas we have
:44:03. > :44:06.been putting forward, whether it is our migration agenda, cutting
:44:07. > :44:10.foreign aid or getting migration down, all of these issues will be in
:44:11. > :44:16.the mainstream in the gives to come. One thing we do know is that one in
:44:17. > :44:24.one out on immigration. Straightaway? It will be over five
:44:25. > :44:28.years. Don't you want to stop low skilled and unskilled coming in
:44:29. > :44:34.straightaway? Yes. There should be a moratorium on that. That has
:44:35. > :44:38.oppressed wages, no question. It has led to people here not being trained
:44:39. > :44:45.for the jobs they should be able to do. Also, there is unemployment in
:44:46. > :44:47.London. There is unemployment amongst young people. This is not
:44:48. > :45:08.being addressed. When it comes to unskilled or low
:45:09. > :45:12.skilled jobs, there is a glut in the market. Basically, people here
:45:13. > :45:15.cannot get jobs, that is for sure. What is happening is that people are
:45:16. > :45:20.brought in and then paid appalling wages, whether it is in coffee shops
:45:21. > :45:25.or whatever. You know the evidence is not for that. The evidence is
:45:26. > :45:30.that if there is a slight negative, 1% over eight years on low skilled
:45:31. > :45:37.and unskilled. And you know for the workforce as a whole, it is actually
:45:38. > :45:40.slightly higher. The evidence has come from none other than the
:45:41. > :45:43.governor of the Bank of England, who has said that there has been
:45:44. > :45:47.suppression of wages across London. The main point about this is that
:45:48. > :45:51.there is great public concern about the level of migration, as we saw
:45:52. > :45:55.this week with the Tories. They put it as virtually a footnote in the
:45:56. > :45:58.back of their manifesto. But we're talking about London and you must
:45:59. > :46:04.accept that there is not that concerned. There are absolutely is.
:46:05. > :46:09.What concerns do you have at all? About, for instance the loss of ?5
:46:10. > :46:12.billion, the net contribution to the economy of those East European
:46:13. > :46:17.workers that have come in since 2004. I dispute these figures, first
:46:18. > :46:22.of all, but the other point is this. It is not just about the needs of
:46:23. > :46:27.big business or about money as a whole. It is about housing, it is
:46:28. > :46:30.about hospital places, it is about education places. We have got the
:46:31. > :46:36.biggest crisis in housing in the whole country. But if they are net
:46:37. > :46:39.contributors, contributing to the exchequer, they are helping to
:46:40. > :46:45.provide the receipts improving those conditions. But they are not
:46:46. > :46:47.improving. Or are you blaming them for underinvestment elsewhere? It is
:46:48. > :46:52.absolute common sense that people can see for themselves, if you have
:46:53. > :46:56.huge numbers of people coming into the country, coming into London,
:46:57. > :47:00.London's population is growing by 1 million a decade. That will have an
:47:01. > :47:06.affect on housing, education, social services, on hospitals. 60,000
:47:07. > :47:11.workers a year coming in, 100,000 with dependents, what would you like
:47:12. > :47:15.to see the figure at, what is a realistic figure for London? That is
:47:16. > :47:19.the wonderful thing about having a points based system. And you have to
:47:20. > :47:23.think through because you will know what different sectors need. Have
:47:24. > :47:27.you an idea? We want to cut migration by half and no other party
:47:28. > :47:31.is saying that at the moment. They are accepting a situation where
:47:32. > :47:35.300,000 people leave so you end up with 300,000 left. We want to get it
:47:36. > :47:40.down to zero net, which would effectively be cutting it by half.
:47:41. > :47:44.And you think that in five years the level of Bob Skilling and investment
:47:45. > :47:48.in further education, the workforce would just emerge to clean our
:47:49. > :47:52.hospitals, to run cafes and work in hotels? This is a counsel of
:47:53. > :47:55.despair. You're basically saying that you are happy to have a Ponzi
:47:56. > :47:59.scheme were you just keep on topping up and topping up and topping up.
:48:00. > :48:03.Those people have to be housed and look after, they have to have
:48:04. > :48:08.medical services, they have to be educated. The fact is that this
:48:09. > :48:12.situation simply cannot go on. We are the only party addressing it.
:48:13. > :48:13.Peter, we will see more details on your policies on Wednesday. Thank
:48:14. > :48:15.you very much indeed. Back in 2015, the Lib Dems
:48:16. > :48:18.collapsed, in London as elsewhere. The extent of any revival
:48:19. > :48:27.would appear to depend still want electoral revenge
:48:28. > :48:31.for a Leave decision. Well, at 20 minutes to five we can
:48:32. > :48:41.now say the decision taken in 1975 by this country to join
:48:42. > :48:48.the Common Market has been reversed. And with that the Liberal Democrats
:48:49. > :48:50.spied an opportunity. They would try to make themselves
:48:51. > :48:54.the voice of the 48%. Going into this election,
:48:55. > :49:00.the party are making a second Our argument is that it shouldn't be
:49:01. > :49:06.a Tory Prime Minister, a Tory cabinet or Tory MPs who sign
:49:07. > :49:10.Britain's contract for the next few In theory, that should
:49:11. > :49:16.work well in London. After all, we cast more votes
:49:17. > :49:18.for Remain than anywhere else in England, but are things
:49:19. > :49:23.really that simple? Just because you voted to stay
:49:24. > :49:27.in the EU, does that mean you want the Lib Dems' solution -
:49:28. > :49:30.a second referendum? Last year she fought and won
:49:31. > :49:36.a landmark court case against the government,
:49:37. > :49:38.forcing them to vote in parliament This election, she is running
:49:39. > :49:42.a tactical voting campaign to help pro-Remain MPs but even she doesn't
:49:43. > :49:45.want to make the public go If you believe in democracy,
:49:46. > :49:52.we have to move on. I personally am not
:49:53. > :49:59.in favour of a second referendum because I think referenda
:50:00. > :50:02.and plebiscite is difficult. I believe in our system
:50:03. > :50:04.of representative democracy, therefore it is about having strong
:50:05. > :50:06.political candidates in parliament to hold
:50:07. > :50:07.government to account, rather than trying to
:50:08. > :50:09.reverse the process. But of course the Lib Dems are
:50:10. > :50:12.standing on more than just Brexit. They also oppose a third runway
:50:13. > :50:16.at Heathrow, want a ban on the sale of diesel vehicles by 2025
:50:17. > :50:18.and want to put London's suburban railways under
:50:19. > :50:20.Transport for London control. On housing, they want to introduce
:50:21. > :50:23.a rent to own scheme that will help people buy a home and take action
:50:24. > :50:26.on foreign buyers, making sure that all new houses
:50:27. > :50:28.are marketed in the UK first. And they've also pledged
:50:29. > :50:30.?60 million to spend The Lib Dems clearly needed to come
:50:31. > :50:41.up with something by way of a manifesto that would really
:50:42. > :50:43.capture the imagination. They've got two MPs in London
:50:44. > :50:46.at the moment, only nine across the country as a whole,
:50:47. > :50:49.and they really needs to get airtime to get back
:50:50. > :50:55.into the public imagination. And this manifesto
:50:56. > :50:57.really hasn't captured Opinion polls are showing
:50:58. > :51:05.the Lib Dems only a point or so ahead of what they got
:51:06. > :51:14.at the last general election and that result saw them almost
:51:15. > :51:16.wiped out in parliament. Broadly in this election,
:51:17. > :51:19.the Lib Dems have got two The first is keep hold of the two
:51:20. > :51:23.MPs they've currently got and after that they want to try
:51:24. > :51:26.and re-elect some of the party's most famous faces who got kicked out
:51:27. > :51:28.in the last general election, people like Vince Cable,
:51:29. > :51:33.Ed Davey and Simon Hughes. But for a party that struggled
:51:34. > :51:35.in recent elections, that will take a reversal
:51:36. > :51:46.in fortunes and has that much really Imagine a future where people are
:51:47. > :51:48.decent to each other, or we take the challenge of climate change
:51:49. > :51:51.seriously. But even the Lib Dems admits
:51:52. > :51:54.they have no realistic chance A good result would be picking up
:51:55. > :51:58.a few seats, but even that Tom Brake joins me now to discuss
:51:59. > :52:09.his party's offer to London. Welcome. Isn't the truth that a lot
:52:10. > :52:14.of people, as we have acknowledged in the introduction, remain in the
:52:15. > :52:17.capital, but the decision has now been made and they actually just
:52:18. > :52:24.want people, and the government to get on with it. We accept the
:52:25. > :52:27.outcome of the vote. And the country did vote for Brexit. We have a
:52:28. > :52:31.difference of opinion with the Prime Minister over what the best approach
:52:32. > :52:36.to Brexit is going to be an Brexit, of course, as a particular impact on
:52:37. > :52:39.London. It is probably more dependent on us being part of the
:52:40. > :52:43.single market than virtually anywhere else. But isn't it a
:52:44. > :52:50.problem that straight from the word go we had Tim Farron, much of the
:52:51. > :52:53.time he spent in London emphasising a second referendum. But the pure
:52:54. > :52:57.choice, if you want to keep on opposing it, is to come to the
:52:58. > :53:01.Liberal Democrats. Is that where Londoners really are? Do they want
:53:02. > :53:04.that? I don't think it is about opposing it, I think it is about
:53:05. > :53:08.giving people the opportunity, once a Prime Minister has completed the
:53:09. > :53:13.deal, to have their say, because what we do not know a present is
:53:14. > :53:20.whether that deal might require the UK to pay 50 billion euros. If that
:53:21. > :53:22.is the case, I would have thought there was a substantial proportion
:53:23. > :53:26.of people who would be interested in having a view on this. You will know
:53:27. > :53:31.from your own seat the impact of what Ukip might do, not sending in
:53:32. > :53:36.some seats. 7000 Ukip votes in your seat and Ukip were not standing.
:53:37. > :53:40.They claim it is a deliberate strategy and that is something that
:53:41. > :53:45.will potentially cost you dearly, if, as we think we are seeing, they
:53:46. > :53:48.are going over to the Tories. As far as we can tell, that is not
:53:49. > :53:53.happening uniformly, but we are pushing in a London context some
:53:54. > :54:04.proposals which we hope will appeal to Londoners. We oppose Crossrail
:54:05. > :54:12.two, and we are opposing -- we support Crossrail two and we are
:54:13. > :54:15.opposing a third runway. You are specifying local issues, and we know
:54:16. > :54:18.the rules about your constituency, but be honest with me, are those
:54:19. > :54:24.Ukip voters going back to the Conservatives, next door, where you
:54:25. > :54:28.did very well last time as well? I am sure that some of them well. But
:54:29. > :54:33.if we are campaigning on a platform that is not just about Brexit, in
:54:34. > :54:37.London all Liberal Democrat candidates, and we have candidates
:54:38. > :54:41.in all the seats, are also campaigning on things like the NHS,
:54:42. > :54:45.and there will be many former Ukip voters concerned about the state of
:54:46. > :54:49.the NHS. There will also be many Ukip voters worried about the state
:54:50. > :54:51.of funding in London's schools where we have something positive to say in
:54:52. > :54:58.terms of how we would increase funding. You mention you are
:54:59. > :55:01.standing in the seats. Is there an issue now there as well? We have
:55:02. > :55:05.seen the greens withdraw from some seats to help Liberal Democrat
:55:06. > :55:09.candidates in south-west London. What are you putting into this
:55:10. > :55:13.progressive alliance? Would you not have been sensible to stood aside --
:55:14. > :55:18.to have stood aside in some of these seats? It is a local party decision
:55:19. > :55:22.and some of the local parties in Caroline Lucas's seats decided not
:55:23. > :55:29.to put up a candidate. Why not something like healing and central
:55:30. > :55:32.action, if Ukip had stepped aside their comedy made it easier for the
:55:33. > :55:39.Conservatives and the greens have set aside help Labour. Why would Lib
:55:40. > :55:42.Dems not step aside there? I guess the same question could be asked
:55:43. > :55:46.about Liberal Democrat seat in London where the Labour Party and
:55:47. > :55:50.the greens had not stepped down. You currently have to MPs and you are no
:55:51. > :55:54.longer a big player. The party is still a party, probably not that
:55:55. > :55:58.this general election but in the future general elections aspired to
:55:59. > :56:03.be a party of government. You could see that anywhere -- you could say
:56:04. > :56:08.that at any time. One local party, as with Caroline Lucas's seats, they
:56:09. > :56:13.thought it was right to stand down and that was what we saw. Are you
:56:14. > :56:16.saying that given it does not look, based on the polls, with a normal
:56:17. > :56:19.caveats, that the Liberal Democrats will be making huge progress in this
:56:20. > :56:22.election, they do think there should be serious thinking about
:56:23. > :56:27.realignment and the Lib Dems should think about where it goes and what
:56:28. > :56:30.it does next? The idea of a progressive alliance, if the idea is
:56:31. > :56:34.that the Lib Dems would come to some arrangement with Jeremy Corbyn's
:56:35. > :56:37.Labour Party, the problem is we do not support a lot of what he
:56:38. > :56:44.advocates. He has contributed almost as much to the debacle that is
:56:45. > :56:48.Brexit as a conservative state. I think a conservative alliance with
:56:49. > :56:51.someone who is not conservative is not something we would support. Is
:56:52. > :56:57.there any electoral advantage any more in opposing Heathrow? I mean
:56:58. > :57:02.Labour are not and the Conservatives have made their decision. What can
:57:03. > :57:05.you do know? We will continue to campaign on it. The residents, and
:57:06. > :57:09.there are very many millions of them who live under the flight path, who
:57:10. > :57:13.will be affected by a third runway at they will not want, in my view,
:57:14. > :57:17.politicians to simply throw their hands up in the air and say it is
:57:18. > :57:20.too difficult and it is agreed so let's forget about it. We will
:57:21. > :57:24.continue to campaign against it. London and the south-east are
:57:25. > :57:27.already overheated in terms of that type of development and there are
:57:28. > :57:31.other parts of the country where there is support for airport
:57:32. > :57:35.expansion, which is not the case in places like Heathrow. So you are
:57:36. > :57:40.sticking to that policy. There are enough. On immigration, we spent a
:57:41. > :57:43.lot of the chat on Peter Whittle on this but Liberal Democrats are
:57:44. > :57:47.saying you will make a more positive case for this. Sadiq Khan, the
:57:48. > :57:51.Labour mayor makes a strong case and Jeremy Corbyn makes a pretty strong
:57:52. > :57:56.case for the economic advantages. What do you mean? What would you
:57:57. > :57:59.like to see numerically happen to migration? I don't think you can set
:58:00. > :58:04.a figure because it depends on the strength of the UK economy. I think
:58:05. > :58:09.we want to reassure people that immigration is the immigration that
:58:10. > :58:12.the UK requires and that the people coming to the UK will not buck the
:58:13. > :58:15.system in some way. What is disappointing is that the present
:58:16. > :58:20.government has not use the powers that already exist to ensure that if
:58:21. > :58:24.an EU citizen is not actively seeking work, they can actually be
:58:25. > :58:29.returned to their country of origin. There are powers that already exist.
:58:30. > :58:32.But at the economy needed it and we wanted the economy to keep on going,
:58:33. > :58:38.you would be happy to see migration go up? If that is what the economy
:58:39. > :58:41.needed. If that is what is required, then I think that is something that
:58:42. > :58:47.should be appropriate. It is worth noting that although in the health
:58:48. > :58:52.service we are starting to see immigration from EU countries going
:58:53. > :58:56.down, all that is happening as a result is that immigration, people
:58:57. > :59:00.coming to work in the NHS are coming from instead India and the
:59:01. > :59:04.Philippines. So a reduction in one might simply leads to an expansion
:59:05. > :59:08.in another area. You had a signature policy about people being able to
:59:09. > :59:12.rent and then try to buy their property eventually to attract the
:59:13. > :59:16.young, but the young are still remembering your policy of getting
:59:17. > :59:20.rid of tuition fees. Why not reverse that? I think that is a policy that
:59:21. > :59:24.is not affordable. We have said we will bring back the maintenance
:59:25. > :59:27.grants that allowed disadvantaged students to get to university,
:59:28. > :59:33.something the Conservatives are cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:34. > :59:40.our policy. Thank you very much, Tom Brake. Andrew, back to you.
:59:41. > :59:43.So, two and half weeks to go till polling day,
:59:44. > :59:45.let's take stock of the campaign so far and look ahead
:59:46. > :59:54.Sam, Isabel and Steve are with me again.
:59:55. > :00:02.Sam, Mrs May had made a great thing about the just about managing. Not
:00:03. > :00:08.the poorest of the poor, but not really affluent people, who are
:00:09. > :00:12.maybe OK but it's a bit of a struggle. What is in the manifesto
:00:13. > :00:16.for them? There is something about the high profile items in the
:00:17. > :00:21.manifesto. She said she wants to help those just above the poorest
:00:22. > :00:26.level. But if you look at things like the winter fuel allowance,
:00:27. > :00:30.which is going to be given only to the poorest. If you look at free
:00:31. > :00:35.school meals for infants, those for the poorest are going to be kept,
:00:36. > :00:42.but the rest will go. The social care plan, those who are renting or
:00:43. > :00:47.in properties worth up to ?90,000, they are going to be treated, but
:00:48. > :00:53.those in properties worth above that, 250,000, for example, will
:00:54. > :01:00.have to pay. Which leads to the question - what is being done for
:01:01. > :01:03.the just about managings? There is something, the personal allowance
:01:04. > :01:08.that David Cameron promised in 2015, that they are not making a big deal
:01:09. > :01:14.of that, because they cannot say by how much. So you are looking in tax
:01:15. > :01:22.rises on the just about managings. Where will the tax rises come from.
:01:23. > :01:29.We do not know, that there is the 40 million pounds gap for the Tories to
:01:30. > :01:34.reach what they are pledging in their manifesto. We do not know how
:01:35. > :01:40.that is going to be made up, more tax, or more borrowing? So that is
:01:41. > :01:44.why the questions of the implications of removing the tax
:01:45. > :01:48.lock are so potentially difficult for Tory MPs. The Labour manifesto
:01:49. > :01:51.gives figures for the cost of certain policies and where the
:01:52. > :01:57.revenue will come from. You can argue about the figures, but at
:01:58. > :02:01.least we have the figures. The Tory manifesto is opaque on these
:02:02. > :02:05.matters. That applies to both the manifestos. Looking at the Labour
:02:06. > :02:09.manifesto on the way here this morning, when you look at the
:02:10. > :02:13.section on care for the elderly, they simply say, there are various
:02:14. > :02:19.ways in which the money for this can be raised. They are specific on
:02:20. > :02:24.other things. They are, and we heard John McDonnell this morning being
:02:25. > :02:33.very on that, and saying there is not a single ? in Tory manifesto. I
:02:34. > :02:38.have only got to page 66. It is quite broad brush and they are very
:02:39. > :02:43.open to challenge. For example, on the detail of a number of their
:02:44. > :02:48.flagship things. There is no detail on their immigration policy. They
:02:49. > :02:52.reiterate the ambition, but not how they are going to do that, without a
:02:53. > :02:59.massive increase in resource for Borders officials. We are at a time
:03:00. > :03:06.where average wages are lagging behind prices. And in work benefits
:03:07. > :03:11.remain frozen. I would have thought that the just-about-managings are
:03:12. > :03:14.people who are in work but they need some in work benefits to make life
:03:15. > :03:23.tolerable and be able to pay bills. Doesn't she has to do more for them?
:03:24. > :03:29.Maybe, but this whole manifesto was her inner circle saying, right, this
:03:30. > :03:36.is our chance to express our... It partly reads like a sort of
:03:37. > :03:40.philosophical essay at times. About the challenges, individualism
:03:41. > :03:46.against collectivism. Some of it reads quite well and is quite
:03:47. > :03:50.interesting, but in terms of its detail, Labour would never get away
:03:51. > :03:54.with it. They wouldn't be allowed to be so vague about where taxes are
:03:55. > :03:59.going to rise. We know there are going to be tax rises after the
:04:00. > :04:07.election, but we don't know where they will be. 100%, there will be
:04:08. > :04:12.tax rises. We know that they wanted a tax rise in the last budget, but
:04:13. > :04:16.they couldn't get it through because of the 2015 manifesto. Labour do
:04:17. > :04:22.offer a lot more detail. People could disagree with it, but there is
:04:23. > :04:28.a lot more detail. More to get your teeth into. About capital gains tax
:04:29. > :04:33.and the rises for better owners and so on. The SNP manifesto comes out
:04:34. > :04:39.this week, and the Greens and Sinn Fein. We think Ukip as well. There
:04:40. > :04:46.are more manifestos to come. The Lib Dems have already brought theirs
:04:47. > :04:50.out. Isn't the Liberal Democrat campaign in trouble? It doesn't seem
:04:51. > :04:55.to be doing particular the well in the polls, or at the local elections
:04:56. > :05:00.a few weeks ago. The Liberal Democrats are trying to fish in
:05:01. > :05:05.quite a small pool for votes. They are looking to get votes from those
:05:06. > :05:10.remainers who want to reverse the result, in effect. Tim Farron is
:05:11. > :05:18.promising a second referendum on the deal at the end of the negotiation
:05:19. > :05:23.process. And that is a hard sell. So those voting for remain on June 23
:05:24. > :05:29.are not low hanging fruit by any means? Polls suggesting that half of
:05:30. > :05:34.those want to reverse the result, so that is a feeling of about 20% on
:05:35. > :05:37.the Lib Dems, and they are getting slightly less than half at the
:05:38. > :05:43.moment, but there are not a huge amount of votes for them to get on
:05:44. > :05:52.that strategy. It doesn't feel like Tim Farron and the Lib Dems have
:05:53. > :05:57.promised enough. They are making a very serious case on cannabis use in
:05:58. > :06:00.a nightclub, but the optics of what they are discussing doesn't make
:06:01. > :06:04.them look like an anchor in a future coalition government that they would
:06:05. > :06:08.need to be. I wonder if we are seeing the re-emergence of the
:06:09. > :06:13.2-party system? And it is not the same two parties. In Scotland, the
:06:14. > :06:17.dynamics of this election seemed to be the Nationalists against the
:06:18. > :06:31.Conservatives. In England, if you look at what has happened to be Ukip
:06:32. > :06:35.vote, and what Sam was saying about the Lib Dems are struggling a bit to
:06:36. > :06:37.get some traction, it is overwhelmingly Labour and the
:06:38. > :06:39.Conservatives. A different 2-party system from Scotland, but a 2-party
:06:40. > :06:43.system. There are a number of different election is going on in
:06:44. > :06:48.parallel. In Scotland it is about whether you are unionist or not.
:06:49. > :06:53.Here, we have the collapse of the Ukip vote, which looks as though it
:06:54. > :06:57.is being redistributed in the Tories' favour. This is a unique
:06:58. > :07:04.election, and will not necessarily set the trend for elections to come.
:07:05. > :07:08.In the Tory manifesto, I spotted the fact that the fixed term Parliament
:07:09. > :07:16.act is going to be scrapped. That got almost no coverage! It turned
:07:17. > :07:20.out to be academic anyway, that it tells you something about how
:07:21. > :07:25.Theresa May is feeling, and she wants the control to call an
:07:26. > :07:29.election whenever it suits her. Re-emergence of the 2-party system,
:07:30. > :07:38.for this election or beyond? For this election, yes, but it shows the
:07:39. > :07:42.sort of robust strength of parties and their fragility. In other words,
:07:43. > :07:46.the Lib Dems haven't really recovered from the losses in the
:07:47. > :07:51.last general election, and are therefore not really seen as a
:07:52. > :07:56.robust vehicle to deliver Remain. If they were, they might be doing
:07:57. > :08:01.better. The Labour Party hasn't recovered in Scotland, and yet, if
:08:02. > :08:06.you look at the basic divide in England and Scotland and you see two
:08:07. > :08:11.parties battling it out, it is very, very hard for the smaller parties to
:08:12. > :08:17.break through and last. Many appear briefly on the political stage and
:08:18. > :08:22.then disappear again. The election had the ostensible goal of Brexit,
:08:23. > :08:27.but we haven't heard much about it in the campaign. Perhaps the Tories
:08:28. > :08:31.want to get back onto that. David Davis sounding quite tough this
:08:32. > :08:37.morning, the Brexit minister, saying there is no chance we will talk
:08:38. > :08:40.about 100 billion. And we have to have power in the negotiations on
:08:41. > :08:45.the free trade deal or what ever it is. I think they are keen to get the
:08:46. > :08:50.subject of the manifesto at this point, because it has not started
:08:51. > :08:55.too well. There is an irony that Theresa May ostensibly called the
:08:56. > :08:59.election because she needed a stronger hand in the Brexit
:09:00. > :09:02.negotiations, and there was an opportunity for the Lib Dems, with
:09:03. > :09:07.their unique offer of being the party that is absolutely against the
:09:08. > :09:13.outcome of the referendum, and offering another chance. There
:09:14. > :09:17.hasn't been much airtime on that particular pledge, because instead,
:09:18. > :09:23.this election has segued into being all about leadership. Theresa May's
:09:24. > :09:29.leadership, and looking again at the Tory manifesto, I was struck that
:09:30. > :09:35.she was saying that this is my plan for the future, not ABBA plan. Even
:09:36. > :09:42.when talking about social care, he manages to work in a bit about
:09:43. > :09:46.Theresa May and Brexit. And Boris Johnson this morning, an interview
:09:47. > :09:50.he gave on another political programme this morning, it was
:09:51. > :09:55.extraordinarily sycophantic for him. Isn't Theresa May wonderful. There
:09:56. > :10:01.is a man trying to secure his job in the Foreign Office! Will he succeed?
:10:02. > :10:08.I think she will leave him. Better in the tent than out. What did you
:10:09. > :10:14.make of David Davis' remarks? He was basically saying, we will walk away
:10:15. > :10:22.from the negotiating table if the Europeans slam a bill for 100
:10:23. > :10:27.billion euros. The point is that the Europeans will not slam a bill for
:10:28. > :10:32.100 billion euros on the negotiating table. That is the gross figure.
:10:33. > :10:37.There are all sorts of things that need to be taken into account. I
:10:38. > :10:43.imagine they will ask for something around the 50 or ?60 billion mark.
:10:44. > :10:48.It looks that they are trying to make it look like a concession when
:10:49. > :10:52.they do make their demands in order to soften the ground for what is
:10:53. > :10:56.going to happen just two weeks after general election day. He makes a
:10:57. > :11:01.reasonable point about having parallel talks. What they want to do
:11:02. > :11:06.straightaway is deal with the bill, Northern Ireland and citizens
:11:07. > :11:08.rights. All of those things are very complicated and interlinked issues,
:11:09. > :11:13.which cannot be dealt with in isolation. I wouldn't be surprised
:11:14. > :11:17.if we ended up with parallel talks, just to work out where we are going
:11:18. > :11:24.with Northern Ireland and the border. Steve, you can't work out
:11:25. > :11:29.what the Northern Ireland border will be, and EU citizens' writes
:11:30. > :11:33.here, until you work out what our relationship with the EU in the
:11:34. > :11:38.future will be. Indeed. The British government is under pressure to deal
:11:39. > :11:43.quickly with the border issue in Ireland, but feel they can't do so
:11:44. > :11:47.because when you have a tariff free arrangement outcome, or an
:11:48. > :11:50.arrangement that is much more protectionist, and that will
:11:51. > :11:54.determine partly the nature of the border. You cannot have a quick
:11:55. > :11:57.agreement on that front without knowing the rest of the deal. I
:11:58. > :12:02.think the negotiation will be complex. I am certain they want a
:12:03. > :12:08.deal rather than none, because this is no deal thing is part of the
:12:09. > :12:12.negotiation at this early stage. Sounding tough in the general
:12:13. > :12:16.election campaign also works electorally. But after the election,
:12:17. > :12:23.it will be a tough negotiation, beginning with this cost of Brexit.
:12:24. > :12:26.My understanding is that the government feels it's got to make
:12:27. > :12:34.the Europeans think they will not do a deal in order to get a deal. They
:12:35. > :12:38.don't want no deal. Absolutely not. And I'm sure it plays into the
:12:39. > :12:43.election. I'm sure the rhetoric will change when the election is over.
:12:44. > :12:45.That's all for today, thank you to all my guests.
:12:46. > :12:47.The Daily Politics will be back on BBC Two at 12.00
:12:48. > :12:51.And tomorrow evening I will be starting my series of interviews
:12:52. > :12:54.with the party leaders - first up is the Prime
:12:55. > :12:56.Minister, Theresa May, that's at 7pm on BBC One.
:12:57. > :12:59.And I'll be back here at the same time on BBC One next Sunday.
:13:00. > :13:04.Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.