:00:28. > :00:32.It's Sunday Morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.
:00:33. > :00:34.Labour attacks Conservative plans for social care and to means-test
:00:35. > :00:38.So can Jeremy Corbyn eat into the Tory lead
:00:39. > :00:43.Theresa May says her party's manifesto is all about fairness.
:00:44. > :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.Here: We ask the Chancellor what's in the Conservative
:01:00. > :01:02.And are grammar schools the best way of improving our
:01:03. > :01:15.And with me - as always - the best and the brightest political
:01:16. > :01:17.panel in the business: Sam Coates, Isabel Oakeshott
:01:18. > :01:19.and Steve Richards - they'll be tweeting throughout
:01:20. > :01:21.the programme, and you can get involved by using
:01:22. > :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. > :01:58.the Conservative manifesto, nobody with assets of less than ?100,000,
:01:59. > :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. > :02:17.so that's why we've said to the Conservative Party,
:02:18. > :02:20.Let's go back to that cross-party approach that actually
:02:21. > :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. > :02:47.are things that will cause political difficulties for the party over this
:02:48. > :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. > :03:30.sign of the Conservatives' confidence? It has the hallmarks of
:03:31. > :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. > :05:21.look at the polls. Nearly five weeks ago, on Tuesday the 18th of April,
:05:22. > :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. > :05:54.increased, that it had decreased for the Lib Dems and Ukip. Last Tuesday
:05:55. > :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. > :06:22.is how the parties currently stand on average. Labour are now on 34%,
:06:23. > :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. > :07:25.the Labour vote, and the continuing problems with the Tory brand. I
:07:26. > :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. > :09:01.incredibly small. She has brought those Ukip voters behind her, and
:09:02. > :09:06.that could be the decisive factor in many seats, rather than the Labour
:09:07. > :09:10.share of the boat picking up a bit or down a bit, depending on how
:09:11. > :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. > :09:33.Four minutes from now, when Big Ben strikes 10.00,
:09:34. > :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. > :10:17.immigration down to the tens of thousands, and talked
:10:18. > :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. > :10:40.of purpose in our country, let us go forward together.
:10:41. > :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. > :11:20.Labour offered a major overhaul of the country's wiring,
:11:21. > :11:22.with a pledge to renationalise infrastructure, like power,
:11:23. > :11:25.The Conservatives said that would cost a fortune,
:11:26. > :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. > :11:34.What have they got planned for health and social care?
:11:35. > :11:38.The Conservatives offered more cash for the NHS,
:11:39. > :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. > :12:22.with inflation or earnings, a double lock.
:12:23. > :12:25.The Conservatives would end of winter fuel payments
:12:26. > :12:28.for the richest, although we don't know exactly who that would be,
:12:29. > :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. > :12:54.they'd sweep away the government's negotiating strategy,
:12:55. > :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. > :13:50.hoped that a cap would stimulate the larger insurance products that would
:13:51. > :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. > :14:39.your social care costs. Is that fair? It is right that for the
:14:40. > :14:45.services that are provided to you, that that is paid out of your
:14:46. > :14:49.assets, subject to two really important qualifications. First, you
:14:50. > :14:56.shouldn't have your entire estate wiped out. At the moment, if you are
:14:57. > :15:02.in residential care, it can be wiped out ?223,000. If you are in
:15:03. > :15:08.domiciliary care, it can be out to ?23,000, plus you're domiciliary.
:15:09. > :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. > :16:02.people and saying that we face this long-term challenge. Our manifesto
:16:03. > :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. > :16:38.they have a fair amount of assets, not massive, including the home,
:16:39. > :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. > :16:53.on the original two individual. At the moment, for those in residential
:16:54. > :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. > :17:05.seeing their protection going up by four times as much, so that is
:17:06. > :17:10.eliminating unfairness. Why should those in residential care be in a
:17:11. > :17:15.worse position than those receiving domiciliary care? But as I say, that
:17:16. > :17:18.money has to come from somewhere and we are sitting at a proper plan for
:17:19. > :17:22.it. While also made the point that we are more likely to be able to
:17:23. > :17:26.have a properly functioning social care market if we have a strong
:17:27. > :17:30.economy, and to have a strong economy we need to deliver a good
:17:31. > :17:34.deal on Brexit and I think Theresa May is capable of doing that. You
:17:35. > :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. > :18:06.all of your other assets get used up until you are down to ?23,000 a
:18:07. > :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. > :18:21.challenges we have is a country, for us to be clear that we need to
:18:22. > :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. > :18:46.anyway. The average house price in your part of the country is just shy
:18:47. > :18:50.of ?430,000, so if you told your own constituents that they might have to
:18:51. > :18:55.spend ?300,000 of their assets on social care before the state steps
:18:56. > :19:00.in to help...? As I said earlier, nobody will be forced to pay during
:19:01. > :19:06.their lifetime. Nobody will be forced to sell their houses. We are
:19:07. > :19:11.providing that protection because of the third premium. Which makes it a
:19:12. > :19:16.kind of death tax, doesn't it? Which is what you use to rail against.
:19:17. > :19:21.What it is people paying for the services they have paid out of their
:19:22. > :19:24.assets. But with that very important protection that nobody is going to
:19:25. > :19:30.be wiped out in the way that has happened up until now, down to the
:19:31. > :19:33.last three years. But when Labour propose this, George Osborne called
:19:34. > :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. > :19:53.are saying that there are -- that there is a state contribution but
:19:54. > :20:00.the public receiving the services will have to pay for it out of
:20:01. > :20:03.assets, which have grown substantially. And which they might
:20:04. > :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. > :20:40.Party has an ambition to control immigration and to bring it down. An
:20:41. > :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. > :20:54.European neighbours were doing anything like it. Not surprisingly,
:20:55. > :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. > :21:14.after year after year, and only Theresa May of the Conservative
:21:15. > :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. > :21:33.came to power in 2010? I think it is higher at the moment. Let's look at
:21:34. > :21:38.the figures. And there they are. You are right, it is higher, so after
:21:39. > :21:46.six years in power, promising to get it down to 100,000, it is higher. So
:21:47. > :21:49.if that is an ambition and you have not succeeded. We have to accept
:21:50. > :21:54.that there are a number of factors. It continues to be the case that the
:21:55. > :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. > :22:04.happen? We are certainly outperforming other countries in a
:22:05. > :22:10.way that we could not have predicted in 2010. That is one of the factors.
:22:11. > :22:12.But if you look at a lot of the steps that we have taken over the
:22:13. > :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. > :22:36.cannot for ever, it seems to me, have net migration numbers in the
:22:37. > :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. > :23:14.more than 100000 and that is the thing you control. It is 164,000 on
:23:15. > :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. > :23:36.we have brought down over the last few years. Not by much, not by
:23:37. > :23:42.anywhere near your 100,000 target. But we clearly have more tools
:23:43. > :23:46.available to us, following Brexit. At this rate it will be around 2030
:23:47. > :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. > :24:12.That is what you are telling me. I don't think anyone expected us to
:24:13. > :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. > :24:41.wider social impact, I don't think it is sustainable for us to have
:24:42. > :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. > :24:53.spending on health will be ?8 billion higher in five use time than
:24:54. > :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. > :25:15.money come from? It will be a priority area for us. We will find
:25:16. > :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. > :25:29.more on the NHS and delivering. One thing I would say is that the only
:25:30. > :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. > :25:42.find out where the ?8 billion come from, where will it come from? Know
:25:43. > :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. > :26:12.putting more money into the NHS. I think that past performance we can
:26:13. > :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. > :26:44.allows people to pass on a very substantial sum,
:26:45. > :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. > :27:08.care. The Tories are saying that if you have ?100,000 or more in assets,
:27:09. > :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. > :27:28.have, for example, the Dilnot report, which identified that you
:27:29. > :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. > :28:09.paying for some of their social care but you cannot take social care and
:28:10. > :28:12.health care separately. It has to be an integrated approach. So for
:28:13. > :28:16.example if you do have dementia, you're more likely to be in an
:28:17. > :28:20.elderly person's home for longer and you most probably have been in care
:28:21. > :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. > :28:40.balance and just to pluck a figure of ?100,000 out of thin air is not
:28:41. > :28:45.sensible. You will have heard me say about David Gold that the house
:28:46. > :28:49.prices in his area, about 450,000 or so, not quite that, and that people
:28:50. > :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. > :29:10.before they hit the ?100,000 minimum. I hesitate to say that but
:29:11. > :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. > :29:48.Conservatives decided to ditch that and come up with another policy
:29:49. > :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. > :30:15.pick a figure out of thin air and use that as a long-term strategy.
:30:16. > :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. > :30:31.spending. In what way is your approach to health spending better
:30:32. > :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. > :31:05.here or there. What you have to do is try to get that... Let me ask you
:31:06. > :31:09.again. In terms of the amount of resource that is going to be devoted
:31:10. > :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. > :31:25.how you use that resource. By just putting money in, you've got to say,
:31:26. > :31:31.if we are going to put that money on, how do we use it? As somebody
:31:32. > :31:35.who has worked in social care for 40 years, you have to have a different
:31:36. > :31:41.approach to how you use that money. The money we are putting in, 7.7,
:31:42. > :31:45.may be similar in cash terms to what the Tories claim they are putting
:31:46. > :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. > :32:07.necessarily follow that the money, under your way of doing it, will
:32:08. > :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. > :32:28.five Asian of the NHS. Staff leaving, not being paid properly. So
:32:29. > :32:32.pay and the NHS go hand in hand. Let's move onto another area of
:32:33. > :32:37.policy where there is some confusion. Who speaks for the Labour
:32:38. > :32:44.Party on nuclear weapons? Is it Emily Thornbury, or Nia Griffith,
:32:45. > :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. > :33:03.Emily Thornbury said that Trident could be scrapped in the defence
:33:04. > :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. > :33:34.terms of, and this is in our manifesto. When you reduce
:33:35. > :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. > :33:56.was saying that we would have another review of Trident or Labour
:33:57. > :34:03.would ditch it. That is nonsense. You will have seen some reports that
:34:04. > :34:07.MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn in the early 90s because of his
:34:08. > :34:16.links to Irish republicanism. This has caused some people, his links to
:34:17. > :34:22.the IRA and Sinn Fein, it has caused some concern. Could you just listen
:34:23. > :34:29.to this clip and react. Do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn
:34:30. > :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. > :34:51.state forces, what the British Army did and the IRA? Well, in a sense,
:34:52. > :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. > :35:08.kind of almost equivalent in it. My point is that the whole violence if
:35:09. > :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. > :35:24.was from about two years ago. Can you explain why the Leader of the
:35:25. > :35:28.Labour Party, Her Majesty 's opposition, the man who would be our
:35:29. > :35:35.next Prime Minister, finds it so hard to condemn IRA arming? I think
:35:36. > :35:38.it has to be within the context that Jeremy Corbyn for many years trying
:35:39. > :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. > :36:05.matter. Bombing is not that complicated. If you are a man of
:36:06. > :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 report from Hartlepool.
:36:29. > :36:38.in Scotland and Wales. Hello and welcome to your
:36:39. > :36:40.local part of the show. We're live in Newcastle
:36:41. > :36:42.with the very latest on the election campaign trail
:36:43. > :36:45.in the North East and Cumbria. With me in the studio,
:36:46. > :36:49.Labour frontbencher Chi Onwurah, who's standing again in Newcastle
:36:50. > :36:52.Central. Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative
:36:53. > :36:55.candidate in Thirsk and Malton - Jonathan Wallace, the Liberal
:36:56. > :36:59.Democrat candidate for Blaydon. And Phillip Broughton, who's
:37:00. > :37:02.standing for Ukip in Hartlepool - his party's top target
:37:03. > :37:05.in the north east. Also this week: Have the parties
:37:06. > :37:08.got the bright ideas But let's start with the manifestos
:37:09. > :37:25.and the impact on the campaign. Cavern, if your manifesto was
:37:26. > :37:29.support, it backfired, according to support, it backfired, according to
:37:30. > :37:33.the polls, which suggest Labour is closing the gap, and it is on their
:37:34. > :37:39.policies towards older people that have been perhaps unpopular on the
:37:40. > :37:44.doorsteps. This certainly isn't a giveaway manifesto, we are trying to
:37:45. > :37:49.make sure future generations have the opportunities are previous
:37:50. > :37:53.generations. In terms of the changes for elderly people and adult social
:37:54. > :37:57.care, many people will be better off under the changes, if you are in
:37:58. > :38:02.residential care, you are better. Some bubo getting care in the home
:38:03. > :38:07.are better off, but it does is make a fair system that if you're
:38:08. > :38:10.receiving state funded care, your assets are taken into account,
:38:11. > :38:16.whether they be cash assets or the value of your home. Does it strike
:38:17. > :38:19.you as fair or conservative that people who have got home, bought
:38:20. > :38:23.their home, hoping to pass it on to future generations are being told,
:38:24. > :38:28.100,000 is the most you will pass on, if you're unlucky to get
:38:29. > :38:34.dementia, the value of your home will be wiped. It is not true it is
:38:35. > :38:39.the most, you will be able to keep ?100,000 in any circumstances. They
:38:40. > :38:45.released ?23,000 currently. You'll be able to keep more, you don't have
:38:46. > :38:49.to sell your home or fund your if you get in Tomas O'Leary care, in
:38:50. > :38:55.your own home. If you don't need care, none of it will go to the
:38:56. > :38:59.state. Comfortable selling it to conservatives? Yes, it's a fair
:39:00. > :39:02.deal, the value of your home and your assets should be taken into
:39:03. > :39:05.account any means tested assessment, whether you're getting residential
:39:06. > :39:13.care residential care or care at home. Chi Onwurah, the consumers are
:39:14. > :39:18.being up front, they are,, Labour hasn't got one. We have got a
:39:19. > :39:21.solution. Consider party manifesto shows the content Theresa May has
:39:22. > :39:25.for the public because she is banking on a hard right Brexit and
:39:26. > :39:31.treating pensioners with absolute disdain. The 100,000, the dementia
:39:32. > :39:37.tax, if you are unlucky enough not to be healthy until your last days,
:39:38. > :39:42.whereas the Labour Party, we are saying we will be investing in
:39:43. > :39:48.social care, overcoming the hard cuts. We've cosseted, the Tory
:39:49. > :39:53.party... As I understand it, you're going to put some extra money in,
:39:54. > :39:59.the tax payable funded. You haven't got a long-term solution. The
:40:00. > :40:04.manifesto make clear we will be building a national care service,
:40:05. > :40:12.will be starting it. How will you funded? We set out a fully costed
:40:13. > :40:16.manifesto. You're not suggesting how long-term you will do it, at least
:40:17. > :40:23.to conservatives are. They said it's a big problem, this is our solution.
:40:24. > :40:26.The Conservatives will take away people's earnings, what they have
:40:27. > :40:31.invested in and the people poorer and more scared about what will
:40:32. > :40:35.happen to them in old age. We want to give people the reassurance they
:40:36. > :40:38.don't need to be afraid of being hammered and not passing on what
:40:39. > :40:45.they built up because they happen to be unlucky enough. Jonathan, the
:40:46. > :40:50.Liberal Democrats are guilty of doping it? No, we put a proposal for
:40:51. > :40:55.?6 billion to be invested in social care and the NHS, paid by income
:40:56. > :40:58.tax. We all use the health service and it is right we should be
:40:59. > :41:05.contributing towards it. The Conservative proposals, one of the
:41:06. > :41:09.key reasons why the woodwork is because no cap on what people will
:41:10. > :41:12.be paying towards the cost of their care. If you're wealthier, you
:41:13. > :41:17.should pay a contribution towards your care costs, but what the
:41:18. > :41:22.Conservatives are proposing is there be no cap. We are proposing there
:41:23. > :41:24.should be. The love, it would be nice to know what was in your
:41:25. > :41:31.manifesto, it's not being published manifesto, it's not being published
:41:32. > :41:36.-- fillip. The Conservatives are treating pensioners and eight
:41:37. > :41:42.terrible way, paper pensions back several times. The pension has gone
:41:43. > :41:46.up. The pension goalposts have been moved in this Parliament alone, that
:41:47. > :41:52.is wrong. We are saying you've got to protect the NHS, keep it in the
:41:53. > :41:56.public sector. You've also got to funded. We promised ?3 billion more
:41:57. > :42:01.at the last general election, and I'm sure we will be saying will
:42:02. > :42:06.protect the NHS, and we are fighting for local services. In Hartlepool,
:42:07. > :42:12.the services are taken away. Chi Onwurah, these poor ratings, it may
:42:13. > :42:14.be less to do with your manifesto and that people think there's no way
:42:15. > :42:21.Jeremy Corbyn will be prime ministers so we are saved to vote
:42:22. > :42:25.Labour. Our manifesto goes down well because it is about issues which
:42:26. > :42:31.resonate with people that people believe in, such as national
:42:32. > :42:34.education service. Such as investment in the north-east's
:42:35. > :42:39.infrastructure, transport. Why are you keeping Jeremy Corbyn away
:42:40. > :42:47.promotional seats? They don't want in there. If he's the big sell, why
:42:48. > :42:50.isn't he coming to Darlington, Middlesbrough South? Jeremy Corbyn
:42:51. > :42:58.has been seen all over the media. I'm not personally hope they would
:42:59. > :43:04.reschedule, but he's speaking much more to the knee jerk, but all of
:43:05. > :43:10.those candidates are out on the doorstep -- to the media. It is
:43:11. > :43:14.about policies, not about personalities. The conclusion is
:43:15. > :43:18.that regardless of Jeremy Corbyn, Labour's policies are popular. I
:43:19. > :43:26.will talk about Theresa May, she's very trusting. What about Labour's
:43:27. > :43:33.policies? Lu they don't add up, they've committed friend and 75
:43:34. > :43:39.billion of extra spending. -- framed and 75 billion. It is impossible.
:43:40. > :43:45.This is the tip of the iceberg, they're spending pledges. There's a
:43:46. > :43:50.lot of spending pledges, including the social care one.
:43:51. > :43:56.The key thing is we will make a success Brexit. That is what people
:43:57. > :44:03.want to talk about. Theresa May is trusted to it. Will you accept the
:44:04. > :44:11.national debt has doubled under the Conservatives? It has doubled. I'm
:44:12. > :44:12.going to stop there, we got so much more to discuss.
:44:13. > :44:14.Well, the Chancellor Philip Hammond was campaigning
:44:15. > :44:17.on Tyneside on Thursday - just hours after the Tory
:44:18. > :44:20.Luke Walton asked him what was in the manifesto to help
:44:21. > :44:22.solve this region's long-standing economic problems like
:44:23. > :44:28.The ready key thing is the commitment to our international
:44:29. > :44:32.strategy, which is an explicit commitment to make sure growth is
:44:33. > :44:37.spread around the country and benefits all regions. We do that by
:44:38. > :44:41.investing in infrastructure, by investing in skills and education,
:44:42. > :44:45.by upgrading local industry and local business. Is there a
:44:46. > :44:49.north-east dimension to it? Yes, the Northern Powerhouse stretches across
:44:50. > :44:53.the North, that's an important initiative in itself. It is about
:44:54. > :44:54.making sure the benefits of economic growth are spread across the
:44:55. > :45:01.country. Chi Onwurah, the unemployment figure
:45:02. > :45:05.saw a big dip in the north-east for the first time, London has got
:45:06. > :45:11.higher unemployment rates. If Screech knew that the Conservatives,
:45:12. > :45:14.not so for Labour? It is the case that working people in the
:45:15. > :45:22.north-east know we are an average worse off, so one not if you are in
:45:23. > :45:28.work. In terms of working poverty, people in poverty, people in work
:45:29. > :45:31.still and poverty cost the country, we have 1 million families who live
:45:32. > :45:37.in poverty and the majority of those in poverty are in work. It's
:45:38. > :45:41.important we are creating jobs and the north-east, but they need to be
:45:42. > :45:47.high skill, high wage jobs, which are a route out of poverty. Kevin,
:45:48. > :45:53.people might be in work, but they're not making, getting better off,
:45:54. > :45:58.wages are falling behind inflation. We are where we work in 2010, we
:45:59. > :46:03.were in a deep recession, the deepest recession since the great
:46:04. > :46:06.depression. We did as economy around, the second fastest-growing
:46:07. > :46:14.economy in the developed world. Are creating more jobs. You would accept
:46:15. > :46:18.there's a with wages. I believe we should have a higher minimum wage,
:46:19. > :46:22.we've got a commitment to the national living wage, which is
:46:23. > :46:27.raising the minimum wage right through to ?9 by 2020. We have to do
:46:28. > :46:32.it in a way which visitors can afford to do it and do it gradually,
:46:33. > :46:38.otherwise it will cost jobs. Fillip, this shows it is the Conservatives
:46:39. > :46:42.who are trusted, given the job figures? You can't trust the
:46:43. > :46:47.Conservatives. The national debt has doubled, the Conservative Party have
:46:48. > :46:55.borrowed more in harder time than Labour were in a government. What
:46:56. > :47:03.are you going to could they aren't? We've got to cut the right things,
:47:04. > :47:11.the foreign aid budget, ?12 million, we'd cut crime. How many jobs will
:47:12. > :47:14.that create? We've got to create a fair a company where we cut the tax
:47:15. > :47:19.the lower paid people, we've got to make sure big businesses pay their
:47:20. > :47:23.fair share, that is why we bring in a turnover tax to stop Amazon,
:47:24. > :47:27.Google from not paying tax. Jonathan, no sign of a prose Brexit
:47:28. > :47:29.the disaster that is why we bring in a turnover tax to stop Amazon,
:47:30. > :47:32.Google from not paying tax. Jonathan, no sign of a prose Brexit
:47:33. > :47:35.the disaster the region? People like you are telling us as soon as we
:47:36. > :47:39.vote for this, it will be a disaster. We are in a robust
:47:40. > :47:43.position. That is because we are still in the single market. The key
:47:44. > :47:47.issue for the region, because most of our exports go to the single
:47:48. > :47:51.market, is what access will get to it. The Liberal Democrats would
:47:52. > :47:56.argue we should be in the single market, we need to be in it to enjoy
:47:57. > :48:01.the benefits of it and to make sure we as the only region in the UK that
:48:02. > :48:06.exports more than imports are able to continue to get it. Zimbabwe has
:48:07. > :48:14.access to the single market, but what we want, for the benefit of
:48:15. > :48:19.being a member of the single market. The Liberal Democrats are the only
:48:20. > :48:24.body arguing that we should actually remain in the single market once
:48:25. > :48:27.referendum last year, though referendum last year, though
:48:28. > :48:28.supporting Brexit were saying there would be no danger to our
:48:29. > :48:37.membership. Time to move on. Now, among the most eye-catching
:48:38. > :48:39.proposals in this week's manifestos were those focused on education -
:48:40. > :48:42.and not just Labour's promise All the main parties agree that
:48:43. > :48:46.billions of pounds extra need to be spent on our schools to keep pace
:48:47. > :48:49.with rising pupil numbers. But the issue that really divides
:48:50. > :48:51.them is the Conservative plan to re-introduce
:48:52. > :49:04.selective grammar schools. Well, the sea may be calm here and
:49:05. > :49:09.Hartlepool Marina, but the political waters look on the choppy. The town
:49:10. > :49:13.has had a Labour MP for more than 50 years, the Conservatives and Ukip
:49:14. > :49:18.are increasingly confident of turning the political tide. And in
:49:19. > :49:22.that election campaign, education will be a vital issue. The town
:49:23. > :49:26.likes behind on academic results, though pupils at this local
:49:27. > :49:31.secondary are hitting the target. Its Ofsted rank and has gone from
:49:32. > :49:40.requires improvement to good, the head put that down to hard by hard
:49:41. > :49:42.work, by really focusing on the quality of teaching and learning,
:49:43. > :49:47.looking at the quality of standards. GCSEs are an important benchmark and
:49:48. > :49:51.last year 57% of pupils got at least five of them, including English and
:49:52. > :49:58.maths at grades A start to see. Across the north-east, the figure
:49:59. > :50:04.was 55.7%, cross Hartlepool, 47.5%. The lowest in the region. Figures
:50:05. > :50:09.are better here, but teachers fear a funding squeeze could hamper
:50:10. > :50:13.progress. If we are curtailing and not keeping up with in relation,
:50:14. > :50:22.where will it go? Will we end up with clusters of 60. Will we end up
:50:23. > :50:27.with no teaching assistants? Schools warn spending isn't keeping up with
:50:28. > :50:33.rising costs and pupil numbers, despite a manifesto promises of
:50:34. > :50:37.extra investment, worries remain. We are trying to understand which
:50:38. > :50:40.manifesto is going to see an increase in education. It is not
:50:41. > :50:43.clear that with some of the proposals if they will achieve that
:50:44. > :50:50.level of extra funding into schools that is needed. Also igniting debate
:50:51. > :50:53.in the selection, controversial Conservative plan to allow the
:50:54. > :50:59.setting up of more selective grammar schools. Not a rude stuff here want
:51:00. > :51:03.to go down. I believe we deliver a good education for those students
:51:04. > :51:09.may come brand of school. It worries me because it can create a divide in
:51:10. > :51:14.society. But supporters insisted national evidence is on their side.
:51:15. > :51:18.It's one of the most successful, the successful country in the world,
:51:19. > :51:22.Singapore, successful economy, it has grammar schools, it has
:51:23. > :51:28.selection. Why not have something like that in the north-east to raise
:51:29. > :51:33.standards, to improve education? If education reform is a battle line
:51:34. > :51:37.between parties, parents have more immediate concerns. I asked three of
:51:38. > :51:42.them for their message to the politicians. With changes to exams,
:51:43. > :51:46.one of their bugbears. The government have put in new exams
:51:47. > :51:51.were not given the time for those children to learn what they need.
:51:52. > :51:55.Exams are a big part, and I suppose a mark of their achievement to move
:51:56. > :52:00.on to post-16, but the stress doesn't worry me in terms of how the
:52:01. > :52:02.children cope. Don't mess around with funding, the funding must be
:52:03. > :52:08.there for the future of our children. Simple as that. It's got
:52:09. > :52:13.to be a high priority? Yes, it shouldn't be an issue, it should be,
:52:14. > :52:17.we need high quality education for all our peoples. As these students
:52:18. > :52:23.prepare for exams, our politicians are approaching a different kind of
:52:24. > :52:26.tests, and with the parties divided on education, the outcome of the
:52:27. > :52:27.selection in Hartlepool and across the country could have a big impact
:52:28. > :52:29.here in the classroom. Well, the North East Party -
:52:30. > :52:31.which won a couple of seats earlier this month
:52:32. > :52:33.on Durham County Council - are standing in Easington
:52:34. > :52:35.at the General Election. Susan McDonnell says for them,
:52:36. > :52:37.improving education is a priority for the party -
:52:38. > :52:47.and the government should invest More and more now we are seeing that
:52:48. > :52:51.children aren't going into secondary school education were some of the
:52:52. > :52:55.basics of reading and writing. I think we need to invest a lot more
:52:56. > :52:59.time and effort in the early years of school, a primary schools
:53:00. > :53:03.particularly, and then we would see a lot less effort having to be
:53:04. > :53:05.applied at the secondary school level. That would give children in
:53:06. > :53:14.this area a lot more advantage than they
:53:15. > :53:18.currently have. Is going back to grammar schools the key to bridging
:53:19. > :53:23.the gap in achievement? Pit stop the only key, my children go to a
:53:24. > :53:27.compound of school, it is clear we need more funding and fairer
:53:28. > :53:33.funding. One thing the gentleman was asking about, in terms of what he
:53:34. > :53:36.wanted to say, don't mess with the formula and funding. It cannot be
:53:37. > :53:41.writes some schools in London get 50% more in funding per pupil
:53:42. > :53:45.compared to schools and other parts of the country. We need a fairer
:53:46. > :53:50.funding formula. This government has committed to it. It is a total
:53:51. > :53:56.destruction to then get a new generation of grammar schools? Why
:53:57. > :54:06.not fund exists schools properly? As that gentleman said, Singapore has
:54:07. > :54:10.the best quality of education... Are your children missing out because
:54:11. > :54:13.they are not in a grammar school? We are happy with that education, but
:54:14. > :54:20.we shouldn't rule things out on ideological grounds. It is not just
:54:21. > :54:23.about academic selection for the Britos, it is also about providing
:54:24. > :54:33.technical education for those with different schools. Chi Onwurah, it
:54:34. > :54:37.has happened under the watch of Labour councils, like Northumberland
:54:38. > :54:40.and Middlesbrough have had their education criticise, Sunderland
:54:41. > :54:45.children's services failed, so Labour bears responsibility for the
:54:46. > :54:50.gap. Things could get better if you change the structure. You know as
:54:51. > :54:55.well as I do the funding for our local authorities has been slashed
:54:56. > :55:02.by 50%, not the time control of the schools has passed away from local
:55:03. > :55:06.authorities. The academy system has taken schools out of the control of
:55:07. > :55:10.local authorities. You know there are councils in this region that
:55:11. > :55:15.have been criticised for the standard of education for the
:55:16. > :55:18.schools they control. What we have seen is that the coating of
:55:19. > :55:22.investment into our schools, there's a lot that can be done in terms of
:55:23. > :55:28.improving how we invest in teachers, for example, and improving funding,
:55:29. > :55:30.but what is important is the cuts to school funding, which have not been
:55:31. > :55:38.acknowledged by the government, and in particular early years. We have
:55:39. > :55:46.lost 40% of our sure start centres in the north-east. The Labour Party
:55:47. > :55:51.is promising to invest 5 billion in early years, paid for by small
:55:52. > :55:58.increase in income tax from those earning over ?80,000. That is part
:55:59. > :56:03.of the solution. Grammar schools, Ukip's big idea, you've got nowhere
:56:04. > :56:08.to go. We are having a false to read, whether it is a grammar
:56:09. > :56:12.school, comprehensive, that's not the issue, funding is an issue. I'm
:56:13. > :56:16.fighting that would get their funding, because the Tories are
:56:17. > :56:23.cutting ?3 billion of the budget, Hartlepool will lose money. It is
:56:24. > :56:27.true. They are protecting school funding, there are debates about it.
:56:28. > :56:34.They've said on the formula no school will lose out. That is not
:56:35. > :56:38.the case. The educational policy Institute has the figure and
:56:39. > :56:45.Hartlepool will lose ?850,000, while places like Ballmer won't lose a
:56:46. > :56:50.am fighting for very school funding am fighting for very school funding
:56:51. > :56:57.in the selection. Jonathan, the Liberal Democrats want to increase
:56:58. > :57:01.funding the early years, but as we've seen in labour, investments
:57:02. > :57:05.and buildings and schools does not necessarily improve social mobility.
:57:06. > :57:09.mobility the worst thing you can do mobility the worst thing you can do
:57:10. > :57:13.is reintroduce grammar schools. There is talk of labour going back
:57:14. > :57:17.to 1970s, this is as going back to the lighting 50s. Grammar schools
:57:18. > :57:27.are socially diapason, they will benefit a small number. -- socially
:57:28. > :57:32.dive I serve -- diverse of. If you are a grammar school pupil, you are
:57:33. > :57:35.part of the minority, you need to be making sure the educational
:57:36. > :57:41.standards raise for all children, not just those lucky enough to go to
:57:42. > :57:44.a grammar school. I agree with that, 1.8 million children in our country
:57:45. > :57:53.who go to schools that are rated good or outstanding, more
:57:54. > :57:58.children... Chi Onwurah, Labour's pledge, scratch wishing fees. Is
:57:59. > :58:02.that really sustainable? It is absolutely sustainable because
:58:03. > :58:06.investing in our young people, we are not using young people's
:58:07. > :58:09.potential. I see so many young people who either don't want to go
:58:10. > :58:14.to university or have an apprenticeship. The figures show
:58:15. > :58:20.more people from poorer backgrounds go to university now. Not delivering
:58:21. > :58:25.in high skilled jobs, we haven't much that with embarrassment. Both
:58:26. > :58:33.Philip and Kevin are disincentives cells from their party's manifestos
:58:34. > :58:41.on grammar schools. -- distancing themselves. We need to get rid of
:58:42. > :58:45.tuition fees. This will appeal to a lot of people, a lot of parents who
:58:46. > :58:53.don't want to see their kids with debt. A basic fact Immers, the
:58:54. > :58:54.government the money. Any funding you seek or sores has come from
:58:55. > :59:06.taxpayers. The education of people who decide
:59:07. > :59:17.to go to university, who should fund at versus ?11 billion a year. We all
:59:18. > :59:19.benefit from it... We will have to live there, I'm afraid. We won't get
:59:20. > :59:21.an agreement. We're back, same time,
:59:22. > :59:24.same place next Sunday when the Green Party will be among
:59:25. > :59:27.the studio guests. And if you live in Workington
:59:28. > :59:29.in Cumbria and fancy putting a question to your local candidates,
:59:30. > :59:33.look out for our Look North hot 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. > :59:42.So, two and half weeks to go till polling day,
:59:43. > :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. > :00:01.Sam, Mrs May had made a great thing about the just about managing. Not
:00:02. > :00:07.the poorest of the poor, but not really affluent people, who are
:00:08. > :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. > :00:25.level. But if you look at things like the winter fuel allowance,
:00:26. > :00:30.which is going to be given only to the poorest. If you look at free
:00:31. > :00:34.school meals for infants, those for the poorest are going to be kept,
:00:35. > :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. > :00:59.have to pay. Which leads to the question - what is being done for
:01:00. > :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. > :01:39.that is going to be made up, more tax, or more borrowing? So that is
:01:40. > :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. > :02:04.matters. That applies to both the manifestos. Looking at the Labour
:02:05. > :02:09.manifesto on the way here this morning, when you look at the
:02:10. > :02:12.section on care for the elderly, they simply say, there are various
:02:13. > :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. > :02:32.very on that, and saying there is not a single ? in Tory manifesto. I
:02:33. > :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. > :02:47.flagship things. There is no detail on their immigration policy. They
:02:48. > :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. > :03:22.tolerable and be able to pay bills. Doesn't she has to do more for them?
:03:23. > :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. > :04:59.a few weeks ago. The Liberal Democrats are trying to fish in
:05:00. > :05:05.quite a small pool for votes. They are looking to get votes from those
:05:06. > :05:09.remainers who want to reverse the result, in effect. Tim Farron is
:05:10. > :05:17.promising a second referendum on the deal at the end of the negotiation
:05:18. > :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. > :05:42.moment, but there are not a huge amount of votes for them to get on
:05:43. > :05:52.that strategy. It doesn't feel like Tim Farron and the Lib Dems have
:05:53. > :05:56.promised enough. They are making a very serious case on cannabis use in
:05:57. > :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. > :06:16.dynamics of this election seemed to be the Nationalists against the
:06:17. > :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. > :07:28.election whenever it suits her. Re-emergence of the 2-party system,
:07:29. > :07:38.for this election or beyond? For this election, yes, but it shows the
:07:39. > :07:41.sort of robust strength of parties and their fragility. In other words,
:07:42. > :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. > :08:05.you look at the basic divide in England and Scotland and you see two
:08:06. > :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. > :08:36.morning, the Brexit minister, saying there is no chance we will talk
:08:37. > :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. > :08:54.too well. There is an irony that Theresa May ostensibly called the
:08:55. > :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. > :09:28.leadership, and looking again at the Tory manifesto, I was struck that
:09:29. > :09:35.she was saying that this is my plan for the future, not ABBA plan. Even
:09:36. > :09:41.when talking about social care, he manages to work in a bit about
:09:42. > :09:45.Theresa May and Brexit. And Boris Johnson this morning, an interview
:09:46. > :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. > :10:21.from the negotiating table if the Europeans slam a bill for 100
:10:22. > :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. > :10:36.There are all sorts of things that need to be taken into account. I
:10:37. > :10:43.imagine they will ask for something around the 50 or ?60 billion mark.
:10:44. > :10:47.It looks that they are trying to make it look like a concession when
:10:48. > :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. > :11:05.straightaway is deal with the bill, Northern Ireland and citizens
:11:06. > :11:08.rights. All of those things are very complicated and interlinked issues,
:11:09. > :11:12.which cannot be dealt with in isolation. I wouldn't be surprised
:11:13. > :11:17.if we ended up with parallel talks, just to work out where we are going
:11:18. > :11:23.with Northern Ireland and the border. Steve, you can't work out
:11:24. > :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. > :11:53.determine partly the nature of the border. You cannot have a quick
:11:54. > :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. > :12:07.deal rather than none, because this is no deal thing is part of the
:12:08. > :12:11.negotiation at this early stage. Sounding tough in the general
:12:12. > :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. > :12:33.the Europeans think they will not do a deal in order to get a deal. They
:12:34. > :12:38.don't want no deal. Absolutely not. And I'm sure it plays into the
:12:39. > :12:42.election. I'm sure the rhetoric will change when the election is over.
:12:43. > :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. > :12:53.with the party leaders - first up is the Prime
:12:54. > :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.