21/05/2017 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

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.