21/05/2017 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria


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

Similar Content

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



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


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


So can Jeremy Corbyn eat into the Tory lead


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


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


The polls have always shown healthy leads for the Conservatives.


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


Here: We ask the Chancellor what's in the Conservative


And are grammar schools the best way of improving our


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


panel in the business: Sam Coates, Isabel Oakeshott


and Steve Richards - they'll be tweeting throughout


the programme, and you can get involved by using


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


worse off under plans outlined in the Conservative manifesto.


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


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


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


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


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


there needs to be more cross-party consensus.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


something that has been cobbled together in a very unnaturally short


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


intervening weeks, support for the Conservatives and Labour had


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


widened consistently throughout the campaign. There was the SDP -


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


parties and, for once, voters can hardly complain that


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


Since the Liberal Democrats and SNP have ruled out


coalitions after June 8th, Adam Fleming compares the Labour


Welcome to the BBC's election centre.


Four minutes from now, when Big Ben strikes 10.00,


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


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


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


The parties' policies are now the finished product.


In Bradford, Jeremy Corbyn vowed a bigger state,


the end of austerity, no more tuition fees.


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


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


immigration down to the tens of thousands, and talked


of leadership and tough choices in uncertain times.


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


And, with confidence in ourselves and a unity


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


Let's look at the Labour and Conservative


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


The Conservatives ditched their triple lock, giving them


freedom to put up income tax and national insurance,


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


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


with a pledge to renationalise infrastructure, like power,


The Conservatives said that would cost a fortune,


but provided few details for the cost of their policies.


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


manifesto showed, their numbers simply do not add up.


What have they got planned for health and social care?


The Conservatives offered more cash for the NHS,


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


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


plus free hospital parking and more pay for staff.


The Conservatives would increase the value of assets you could


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


added to the assessment of your wealth,


There was a focus on one group of voters in particular


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


The Tories would keep the increase in line


with inflation or earnings, a double lock.


The Conservatives would end of winter fuel payments


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


This is a savage attack on vulnerable pensioners,


particularly those who are just about managing.


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


When it comes to leaving the European Union, Labour say


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


secure a better deal and straightaway guaranteed the rights


The Tories say a big majority would remove political uncertainty


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


intergenerational fairness and one of which was delivering a strong


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


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


between the general taxpayer and those receiving the services. We


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


assets, which have grown substantially. And which they might


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


European neighbours were doing anything like it. Not surprisingly,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


happen? We are certainly outperforming other countries in a


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


UK jobs market growing substantially. It is extraordinary


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


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


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


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


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


George Osborne says your target is economically illiterate. I disagree


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


take forward. Thank you for joining us.


So, the Conservatives have been taking a bit of flak


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


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


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


everybody, all serious demographers acknowledge will be the massive


problem of the cost of social care long-term.


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


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


allows people to pass on a very substantial sum,


still, to their kids, and takes away the fear


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Conservatives decided to ditch that and come up with another policy


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


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


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


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


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


The Conservatives are now saying they will increase health spending


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Emily Thornbury said that Trident could be scrapped in the defence


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the treatment of IRA prisoners which made them into virtual political


prisoners suggested that the British government and the state saw some


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


you're watching the Sunday Politics. We report from Hartlepool.


in Scotland and Wales. Hello and welcome to your


local part of the show. We're live in Newcastle


with the very latest on the election campaign trail


in the North East and Cumbria. With me in the studio,


Labour frontbencher Chi Onwurah, who's standing again in Newcastle


Central. Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative


candidate in Thirsk and Malton - Jonathan Wallace, the Liberal


Democrat candidate for Blaydon. And Phillip Broughton, who's


standing for Ukip in Hartlepool - his party's top target


in the north east. Also this week: Have the parties


got the bright ideas But let's start with the manifestos


and the impact on the campaign. Cavern, if your manifesto was


support, it backfired, according to support, it backfired, according to


the polls, which suggest Labour is closing the gap, and it is on their


policies towards older people that have been perhaps unpopular on the


doorsteps. This certainly isn't a giveaway manifesto, we are trying to


make sure future generations have the opportunities are previous


generations. In terms of the changes for elderly people and adult social


care, many people will be better off under the changes, if you are in


residential care, you are better. Some bubo getting care in the home


are better off, but it does is make a fair system that if you're


receiving state funded care, your assets are taken into account,


whether they be cash assets or the value of your home. Does it strike


you as fair or conservative that people who have got home, bought


their home, hoping to pass it on to future generations are being told,


100,000 is the most you will pass on, if you're unlucky to get


dementia, the value of your home will be wiped. It is not true it is


the most, you will be able to keep ?100,000 in any circumstances. They


released ?23,000 currently. You'll be able to keep more, you don't have


to sell your home or fund your if you get in Tomas O'Leary care, in


your own home. If you don't need care, none of it will go to the


state. Comfortable selling it to conservatives? Yes, it's a fair


deal, the value of your home and your assets should be taken into


account any means tested assessment, whether you're getting residential


care residential care or care at home. Chi Onwurah, the consumers are


being up front, they are,, Labour hasn't got one. We have got a


solution. Consider party manifesto shows the content Theresa May has


for the public because she is banking on a hard right Brexit and


treating pensioners with absolute disdain. The 100,000, the dementia


tax, if you are unlucky enough not to be healthy until your last days,


whereas the Labour Party, we are saying we will be investing in


social care, overcoming the hard cuts. We've cosseted, the Tory


party... As I understand it, you're going to put some extra money in,


the tax payable funded. You haven't got a long-term solution. The


manifesto make clear we will be building a national care service,


will be starting it. How will you funded? We set out a fully costed


manifesto. You're not suggesting how long-term you will do it, at least


to conservatives are. They said it's a big problem, this is our solution.


The Conservatives will take away people's earnings, what they have


invested in and the people poorer and more scared about what will


happen to them in old age. We want to give people the reassurance they


don't need to be afraid of being hammered and not passing on what


they built up because they happen to be unlucky enough. Jonathan, the


Liberal Democrats are guilty of doping it? No, we put a proposal for


?6 billion to be invested in social care and the NHS, paid by income


tax. We all use the health service and it is right we should be


contributing towards it. The Conservative proposals, one of the


key reasons why the woodwork is because no cap on what people will


be paying towards the cost of their care. If you're wealthier, you


should pay a contribution towards your care costs, but what the


Conservatives are proposing is there be no cap. We are proposing there


should be. The love, it would be nice to know what was in your


manifesto, it's not being published manifesto, it's not being published


-- fillip. The Conservatives are treating pensioners and eight


terrible way, paper pensions back several times. The pension has gone


up. The pension goalposts have been moved in this Parliament alone, that


is wrong. We are saying you've got to protect the NHS, keep it in the


public sector. You've also got to funded. We promised ?3 billion more


at the last general election, and I'm sure we will be saying will


protect the NHS, and we are fighting for local services. In Hartlepool,


the services are taken away. Chi Onwurah, these poor ratings, it may


be less to do with your manifesto and that people think there's no way


Jeremy Corbyn will be prime ministers so we are saved to vote


Labour. Our manifesto goes down well because it is about issues which


resonate with people that people believe in, such as national


education service. Such as investment in the north-east's


infrastructure, transport. Why are you keeping Jeremy Corbyn away


promotional seats? They don't want in there. If he's the big sell, why


isn't he coming to Darlington, Middlesbrough South? Jeremy Corbyn


has been seen all over the media. I'm not personally hope they would


reschedule, but he's speaking much more to the knee jerk, but all of


those candidates are out on the doorstep -- to the media. It is


about policies, not about personalities. The conclusion is


that regardless of Jeremy Corbyn, Labour's policies are popular. I


will talk about Theresa May, she's very trusting. What about Labour's


policies? Lu they don't add up, they've committed friend and 75


billion of extra spending. -- framed and 75 billion. It is impossible.


This is the tip of the iceberg, they're spending pledges. There's a


lot of spending pledges, including the social care one.


The key thing is we will make a success Brexit. That is what people


want to talk about. Theresa May is trusted to it. Will you accept the


national debt has doubled under the Conservatives? It has doubled. I'm


going to stop there, we got so much more to discuss.


Well, the Chancellor Philip Hammond was campaigning


on Tyneside on Thursday - just hours after the Tory


Luke Walton asked him what was in the manifesto to help


solve this region's long-standing economic problems like


The ready key thing is the commitment to our international


strategy, which is an explicit commitment to make sure growth is


spread around the country and benefits all regions. We do that by


investing in infrastructure, by investing in skills and education,


by upgrading local industry and local business. Is there a


north-east dimension to it? Yes, the Northern Powerhouse stretches across


the North, that's an important initiative in itself. It is about


making sure the benefits of economic growth are spread across the


country. Chi Onwurah, the unemployment figure


saw a big dip in the north-east for the first time, London has got


higher unemployment rates. If Screech knew that the Conservatives,


not so for Labour? It is the case that working people in the


north-east know we are an average worse off, so one not if you are in


work. In terms of working poverty, people in poverty, people in work


still and poverty cost the country, we have 1 million families who live


in poverty and the majority of those in poverty are in work. It's


important we are creating jobs and the north-east, but they need to be


high skill, high wage jobs, which are a route out of poverty. Kevin,


people might be in work, but they're not making, getting better off,


wages are falling behind inflation. We are where we work in 2010, we


were in a deep recession, the deepest recession since the great


depression. We did as economy around, the second fastest-growing


economy in the developed world. Are creating more jobs. You would accept


there's a with wages. I believe we should have a higher minimum wage,


we've got a commitment to the national living wage, which is


raising the minimum wage right through to ?9 by 2020. We have to do


it in a way which visitors can afford to do it and do it gradually,


otherwise it will cost jobs. Fillip, this shows it is the Conservatives


who are trusted, given the job figures? You can't trust the


Conservatives. The national debt has doubled, the Conservative Party have


borrowed more in harder time than Labour were in a government. What


are you going to could they aren't? We've got to cut the right things,


the foreign aid budget, ?12 million, we'd cut crime. How many jobs will


that create? We've got to create a fair a company where we cut the tax


the lower paid people, we've got to make sure big businesses pay their


fair share, that is why we bring in a turnover tax to stop Amazon,


Google from not paying tax. Jonathan, no sign of a prose Brexit


the disaster that is why we bring in a turnover tax to stop Amazon,


Google from not paying tax. Jonathan, no sign of a prose Brexit


the disaster the region? People like you are telling us as soon as we


vote for this, it will be a disaster. We are in a robust


position. That is because we are still in the single market. The key


issue for the region, because most of our exports go to the single


market, is what access will get to it. The Liberal Democrats would


argue we should be in the single market, we need to be in it to enjoy


the benefits of it and to make sure we as the only region in the UK that


exports more than imports are able to continue to get it. Zimbabwe has


access to the single market, but what we want, for the benefit of


being a member of the single market. The Liberal Democrats are the only


body arguing that we should actually remain in the single market once


referendum last year, though referendum last year, though


supporting Brexit were saying there would be no danger to our


membership. Time to move on. Now, among the most eye-catching


proposals in this week's manifestos were those focused on education -


and not just Labour's promise All the main parties agree that


billions of pounds extra need to be spent on our schools to keep pace


with rising pupil numbers. But the issue that really divides


them is the Conservative plan to re-introduce


selective grammar schools. Well, the sea may be calm here and


Hartlepool Marina, but the political waters look on the choppy. The town


has had a Labour MP for more than 50 years, the Conservatives and Ukip


are increasingly confident of turning the political tide. And in


that election campaign, education will be a vital issue. The town


likes behind on academic results, though pupils at this local


secondary are hitting the target. Its Ofsted rank and has gone from


requires improvement to good, the head put that down to hard by hard


work, by really focusing on the quality of teaching and learning,


looking at the quality of standards. GCSEs are an important benchmark and


last year 57% of pupils got at least five of them, including English and


maths at grades A start to see. Across the north-east, the figure


was 55.7%, cross Hartlepool, 47.5%. The lowest in the region. Figures


are better here, but teachers fear a funding squeeze could hamper


progress. If we are curtailing and not keeping up with in relation,


where will it go? Will we end up with clusters of 60. Will we end up


with no teaching assistants? Schools warn spending isn't keeping up with


rising costs and pupil numbers, despite a manifesto promises of


extra investment, worries remain. We are trying to understand which


manifesto is going to see an increase in education. It is not


clear that with some of the proposals if they will achieve that


level of extra funding into schools that is needed. Also igniting debate


in the selection, controversial Conservative plan to allow the


setting up of more selective grammar schools. Not a rude stuff here want


to go down. I believe we deliver a good education for those students


may come brand of school. It worries me because it can create a divide in


society. But supporters insisted national evidence is on their side.


It's one of the most successful, the successful country in the world,


Singapore, successful economy, it has grammar schools, it has


selection. Why not have something like that in the north-east to raise


standards, to improve education? If education reform is a battle line


between parties, parents have more immediate concerns. I asked three of


them for their message to the politicians. With changes to exams,


one of their bugbears. The government have put in new exams


were not given the time for those children to learn what they need.


Exams are a big part, and I suppose a mark of their achievement to move


on to post-16, but the stress doesn't worry me in terms of how the


children cope. Don't mess around with funding, the funding must be


there for the future of our children. Simple as that. It's got


to be a high priority? Yes, it shouldn't be an issue, it should be,


we need high quality education for all our peoples. As these students


prepare for exams, our politicians are approaching a different kind of


tests, and with the parties divided on education, the outcome of the


selection in Hartlepool and across the country could have a big impact


here in the classroom. Well, the North East Party -


which won a couple of seats earlier this month


on Durham County Council - are standing in Easington


at the General Election. Susan McDonnell says for them,


improving education is a priority for the party -


and the government should invest More and more now we are seeing that


children aren't going into secondary school education were some of the


basics of reading and writing. I think we need to invest a lot more


time and effort in the early years of school, a primary schools


particularly, and then we would see a lot less effort having to be


applied at the secondary school level. That would give children in


this area a lot more advantage than they


currently have. Is going back to grammar schools the key to bridging


the gap in achievement? Pit stop the only key, my children go to a


compound of school, it is clear we need more funding and fairer


funding. One thing the gentleman was asking about, in terms of what he


wanted to say, don't mess with the formula and funding. It cannot be


writes some schools in London get 50% more in funding per pupil


compared to schools and other parts of the country. We need a fairer


funding formula. This government has committed to it. It is a total


destruction to then get a new generation of grammar schools? Why


not fund exists schools properly? As that gentleman said, Singapore has


the best quality of education... Are your children missing out because


they are not in a grammar school? We are happy with that education, but


we shouldn't rule things out on ideological grounds. It is not just


about academic selection for the Britos, it is also about providing


technical education for those with different schools. Chi Onwurah, it


has happened under the watch of Labour councils, like Northumberland


and Middlesbrough have had their education criticise, Sunderland


children's services failed, so Labour bears responsibility for the


gap. Things could get better if you change the structure. You know as


well as I do the funding for our local authorities has been slashed


by 50%, not the time control of the schools has passed away from local


authorities. The academy system has taken schools out of the control of


local authorities. You know there are councils in this region that


have been criticised for the standard of education for the


schools they control. What we have seen is that the coating of


investment into our schools, there's a lot that can be done in terms of


improving how we invest in teachers, for example, and improving funding,


but what is important is the cuts to school funding, which have not been


acknowledged by the government, and in particular early years. We have


lost 40% of our sure start centres in the north-east. The Labour Party


is promising to invest 5 billion in early years, paid for by small


increase in income tax from those earning over ?80,000. That is part


of the solution. Grammar schools, Ukip's big idea, you've got nowhere


to go. We are having a false to read, whether it is a grammar


school, comprehensive, that's not the issue, funding is an issue. I'm


fighting that would get their funding, because the Tories are


cutting ?3 billion of the budget, Hartlepool will lose money. It is


true. They are protecting school funding, there are debates about it.


They've said on the formula no school will lose out. That is not


the case. The educational policy Institute has the figure and


Hartlepool will lose ?850,000, while places like Ballmer won't lose a


am fighting for very school funding am fighting for very school funding


in the selection. Jonathan, the Liberal Democrats want to increase


funding the early years, but as we've seen in labour, investments


and buildings and schools does not necessarily improve social mobility.


mobility the worst thing you can do mobility the worst thing you can do


is reintroduce grammar schools. There is talk of labour going back


to 1970s, this is as going back to the lighting 50s. Grammar schools


are socially diapason, they will benefit a small number. -- socially


dive I serve -- diverse of. If you are a grammar school pupil, you are


part of the minority, you need to be making sure the educational


standards raise for all children, not just those lucky enough to go to


a grammar school. I agree with that, 1.8 million children in our country


who go to schools that are rated good or outstanding, more


children... Chi Onwurah, Labour's pledge, scratch wishing fees. Is


that really sustainable? It is absolutely sustainable because


investing in our young people, we are not using young people's


potential. I see so many young people who either don't want to go


to university or have an apprenticeship. The figures show


more people from poorer backgrounds go to university now. Not delivering


in high skilled jobs, we haven't much that with embarrassment. Both


Philip and Kevin are disincentives cells from their party's manifestos


on grammar schools. -- distancing themselves. We need to get rid of


tuition fees. This will appeal to a lot of people, a lot of parents who


don't want to see their kids with debt. A basic fact Immers, the


government the money. Any funding you seek or sores has come from


taxpayers. The education of people who decide


to go to university, who should fund at versus ?11 billion a year. We all


benefit from it... We will have to live there, I'm afraid. We won't get


an agreement. We're back, same time,


same place next Sunday when the Green Party will be among


the studio guests. And if you live in Workington


in Cumbria and fancy putting a question to your local candidates,


look out for our Look North hot cancelled. And rent to own is still


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


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


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


Sam, Isabel and Steve are with me again.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


why the questions of the implications of removing the tax


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


gives figures for the cost of certain policies and where the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


philosophical essay at times. About the challenges, individualism


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


dynamics of this election seemed to be the Nationalists against the


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


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


get some traction, it is overwhelmingly Labour and the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


election because she needed a stronger hand in the Brexit


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


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


outcome of the referendum, and offering another chance. There


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


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


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


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


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


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


he gave on another political programme this morning, it was


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


straightaway is deal with the bill, Northern Ireland and citizens


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


arrangement that is much more protectionist, and that will


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


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


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


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


negotiation at this early stage. Sounding tough in the general


election campaign also works electorally. But after the election,


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


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


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


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


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


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


The Daily Politics will be back on BBC Two at 12.00


And tomorrow evening I will be starting my series of interviews


with the party leaders - first up is the Prime


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


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


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


Andrew Neil and Richard Moss with the latest political news, interviews and debate.

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

Download Subtitles