28/05/2017 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

Good morning and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

New CCTV images are released showing suicide bomber, Salman Abedi,

on the night he attacked Manchester Arena, killing 22 people.

Are the politicians and the security services doing

Theresa May says Britain needs to be "stronger and more resolute"

in confronting extremist views, as she outlines plans

for a new Commission to counter extremism.

We'll be talking to the Security Minister.

Jeremy Corbyn says a Labour government would recruit 1,000

Here: and intelligence agencies.

Seven people from the North East died

in the Manchester bombing - how do we prevent more loss of life?

Which party has the best plan for our roads and railways?

supporters. In London, we look at what the Conservatives are offering

the capital, having voted Remain. To help guide me through this

morning, I'm joined by Steve Richards, Julia

Hartley-Brewer and Tim Marshall. They'll be sharing their thoughts

on Twitter and you can join So, with a week and a half to go,

the election campaign And some recent polls

suggest the race is just We'll be taking a closer look

at that in just a moment but, first, here are some of the key events over

the next 10 days or so: Tonight at 6pm will see the third

of the party leader interviews. This time it's the SNP's

Nicola Sturgeon facing questions While many across the UK will be

enjoying tomorrow's bank holiday, there will be no break

in campaigning for And in the evening it will be

the turn of Ukip's Paul Nuttall On Tuesday the SNP

publish their manifesto - the last of the major parties to do

so - after last week's Then on Wednesday, the BBC's

Election Debate will see representatives from the seven main

parties debate in front On Thursday, Lib Dem leader Tim

Farron will have his interview... Before Friday's Question Time

special with Theresa May They won't debate each other,

but will take questions consecutively from members

of the audience. The final week of campaigning

is a short one, with politicians cramming in three days

of door-knocking before voters go We'll have an exit poll once

voting has ended at 10pm, with the result expected early

in the morning of June 9th. Well, it's Sunday, and that always

means a spate of new opinion And they make for fascinating,

if a tad confusing, reading. There are five new opinion

polls today, which have the Conservative lead

over Labour anywhere from six points to 14 points.

So, what's going on? Professor John Curtice

is the expert we always turn to at times like this,

and he joins me from Glasgow. Take us through these polls. They

seem to be all over the place? They may seem to be but there is a very

consistent key message. Four of these five polls, if you compare

them with what they were saying before the Conservative manifesto

launch on the 18th, four say the Conservatives are down by two

points. Four of them say the Labour vote is up by two points. A clear

consistent message. The Conservative lead has narrowed. Why does this

matter? It matters because we are now in a position where the leads

are such that the Conservatives can no longer be sure of getting the

landslide majority they want. Some posters suggesting they may be in

trouble and it is going to get rather close. Others suggested is

further apart. There are two major sources of... The Poles agree that

young voters will vote Labour if they vote. Older voters will vote

for the Conservatives. How many of those younger voters will turn out

to vote? The second thing is whether the evidence in the opinion polls

that the Conservatives are advancing more in the North of England and the

Midlands is realised that the ballot box? If it is not realised, the

Tories chances of getting a landslide look remote. If it is,

they could still well indeed get a majority more than 80%. The

Conservatives have lost some ground depending on which opinion poll you

look at. What about the Labour Party? It is gaining ground. It has

been gaining ground ever since week one. They started on 26, they now

average 35. There were a lot of people out there at the beginning of

the campaign who were saying, I usually vote Labour but the truth is

I'm not sure about Jeremy Corbyn. They seem to have decided the Labour

manifesto wasn't so bad. They have looked at Theresa May and have said,

we will stick with Labour. Labour have managed to draw back into the

fold some of their traditional voters who were disenchanted,

together with, crucially, some of those younger voters who have never

voted before, who have always been a particular target for Jeremy Corbyn.

What is your reaction to previous opinion polls and elections weather

has been a feeling that some of the Labour support has been overstated?

This be a worry this time? That is one of the uncertainties that faces

the opinion polls and the rest of us. We had a conference on Friday at

which it was carefully explained that pollsters have been trying to

correct the errors that resulted in an overestimation of Labour support

a couple of years ago, particularly among younger voters. You shouldn't

assume the opinion polls will be wrong this time because they were

wrong the last time. We want in truth know whether or not the polls

have got it right. Even if they are wrong in terms of the level, they

are not wrong in terms of the trend. The trends have been dramatic so

far. A big rise in Tory support early on at the expense of Ukip. And

subsequently, a remarkable rise in Labour support, albeit from a low

initial baseline. This election has already seen quite a lot of

movement. We shouldn't rule out the possibility there will be yet more

in the ten days to come. That is his analysis. Let's talk to

the panel. Julia, how concerned should Conservative headquarters be

at this particular point at what looks like an apparent surge by

Labour? Depends if you want a massive landslide majority or might

not. I assume the Tory party do. Whether anybody thinks that is a

good idea is a different matter. Undoubtedly the manifesto league was

a total disaster. Social care policy and the U-turn. Lots of stuff in the

Labour manifesto was very appealing. The tactic from Sir Lynton Crosby

was clear. It is all about Theresa May. Don't even mention the

candidate or the party. The Labour Party, the candidates are on the

moderate side are saying, don't mention Jeremy Corbyn. This has been

a battle between two big people. The more we have seen of Theresa May,

she has gone down. The more we have seen of Jeremy Corbyn, he has gone

up. If you make it about strong and stable leadership and then you do

something like a massive unprecedented U-turn on a key policy

like social care, the knock is even greater. Do you think that is the

reason for the change in the opinion polls or is Labour gaining some

momentum? I think it is part of the reason. You can understand why the

focus was on her at the beginning because her personal ratings were

stratospheric. What is interesting is all successful leaders basically

cast a spell over voters in the media. None of them are titans. All

of them are flawed. It is a question of when the spell is broken. This is

a first for a leader's spell to be broken during an election campaign.

That was a moment of high significance. The fact the Labour

Party campaign is more robust than many thought it would be is the

other factor. I think it is the combination of the two, that the

trend, as Professor John Curtis said, the trend has been this

narrow. There has not been much campaigning. Local campaigning

resumed on Thursday, national campaigning on Friday. Do you think,

Tim Marshall, that the opinion polls are reflecting what happened in

Manchester and people's thoughts about which party will keep them

safe? No, I think that will come next week. I think it is too soon

for that. It was quite understandable from the V -- the

very beginning for Lynton Crosby to frame the campaign in terms of

Theresa May and Brexit. The electorate can have its own view.

You always have to go back to Clinton's it's the economy stupid

for most of the electorate. It is framed in your electricity bill. It

is framed in your jobs. Both manifestos have got more holes in

them than Swiss cheese. It comes down to which manifesto you believe.

The Labour manifesto makes more promises about things you care about

like your electricity bill. Interesting, but in the end despite

while we thought would be a Brexit election, it has been a lot about

public services. It always comes down to bread-and-butter issues. I

don't think we have quite seen how the terrorist you has played out. We

had the Westminster attack only a couple of months ago. That was

already factored in in terms of who you trust and who you don't trust.

The IRA stuff from Jeremy Corbyn is already factored in. People actually

care about how ordinary government policies affect their lives. Thank

you very much. The election campaign was,

of course, put on hold following the terrorist

attack in Manchester But now that campaigning has

resumed, it's hardly surprising that security

is now a primary concern. The Labour Party has announced it

would recruit 1,000 more Jeremy Corbyn, speaking on ITV at

short while ago, says previous cuts have undermined security.

It seems that the cuts in police numbers have led to some very

dangerous situation is emerging. It is also a question of a community

response as well. So that where, an imam, for example, lets the police

he is concerned about a muddy, I would hope they would act. And I

would hope we have -- and I would hope they would have the resources

to act as well. Joining me now from Leeds

is the Shadow Justice Good morning. You have announced a

thousand more Security and Intelligence agency staff. That is

in line with what the government has already announced and the Shadow

Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, has said you would not be spending any

more money. It doesn't amount to much, does it? That is just one of

the parts of our pledge card on the safer communities. There is also

10,000 extra police, because the Conservatives cut the police by

20,000. That 10,000 extra police would mean in -- and extra police

officer in each neighbourhood. There are 3000 extra put -- prison

officers. Prison staff has been cut by 6000. That is a third. It is not

helping keep communities safer. We are pledging 3000 extra

firefighters. Also, a thousand extra security staff and 500 extra border

guards. There have been 13 areas identified where our borders are not

as secure as they should be. That is the list of numbers you have given.

If we concentrate on the security services, because it was Jeremy

Corbyn he said there will be more police on the streets under Labour.

If the security sources need more resources they should get them. Why

aren't you giving them more? We are committing to a thousand more

police. The Godinet is doing that as well. You are not committing

anything more. The government has not delivered on that promise. We

will deliver on that promise is -- promise. What Jeremy has made very

clear is that you can't do security on the cheap. Austerity has to stop

at the police station door, and at the hospital door. But we will be

giving the resources required to keep our communities safer. So you

will give them the resources and more powers? Well, the police need

to be empowered. But when you listen to what the Police Federation are

saying, they have been speaking out for a long time about the danger

caused by police cuts. And I'm talking not only about terrorism,

not only about acts of extreme violence, but anything from

anti-social behaviour to burglary. Use it more powers. What sort of

powers are you thinking of giving the security services? We need to

listen to them. That is not a power. We need to listen to the

intelligence community and the security service, to the army and

the police, about what they think and how they think our communities

could be made safe. One thing is clear. Cutting the number of police

by 20,000 makes our community is less safe, not more safe. You said

you will listen to the security services. Can voters be reassured

and guaranteed that Jeremy Corbyn will listen to the security services

and the police in terms of more powers if that is what they want?

Until now he has spent his whole political career voting against

measures designed to tackle home-grown and international

terrorism. Jeremy Corbyn's speech on safer communities earlier this week

made clear he is listening to the security services. So he would grant

those new powers. He voted against the terrorism Act in 2000, into

thousands and six. In 2011. And in 2014, the data retention and

investigatory Powers act. Which new powers will he be happy to enact?

Just to say, Jeremy Corbyn along with Theresa May, David Davis and

many Conservative MPs, voted against legislation where they thought it

would be ill-advised, ineffective or actually counter-productive. It is a

very complex situation. What we don't want to do is introduce

hastily prepared laws with one eye to the newspaper headlines, which

can act as recruiting sergeants for terrorism. And actually, when I said

earlier that Jeremy Corbyn made clear in his speech this week that

he has been listening to the security services, what he said

about the international situation has also been said by the former

head of MI5, Stella Rimington, and her predecessor. As well as

president of back -- President Barack Obama.

You say he will give the police and security services the resources and

powers they need. If we look back at some of the legislation Jeremy

Corbyn and others voted against in 2000, it gave the Secretary of State

the -- new powers... Does Jeremy Corbyn still think that is a bad

idea? Jeremy Corbyn along with Theresa May, David Davis and

others... I know you want to bracket it with Conservatives but I'm

interested in what Jeremy Corbyn will do when he says we are going to

be smarter about fighting terrorism. If he's not prepared to vote in

favour of those sorts of measures, or trying to impose restrictions on

suspects, I'm trying to find out what he will do. It is a complex

situation. With this legislation the devil is often in the detail. If it

was a simple and stopping terrorism by voting a piece of legislation

through Parliament, it would have been stopped a long time ago. Sadly

there are no easy answers, and that is recognised by Barack Obama,

Stella Rimington, the head of the MI5, by David Davis and other

Conservative MPs. What is clear, as Jeremy made clear in his speech this

week, is the way things are being done currently is not working. We

have got to be tough on terrorism and the unforgivable acts of murder,

but also tough on the causes of terrorism as well. The sad truth is

there are no easy answers. If there were, the problem would have been

solved a long time ago. If you more security and terrorism officers but

your leader is still uncomfortable with giving them the powers they

need to do their jobs because it is complicated legislation, they will

want to know how you are going to do it. At another stop the War rally in

2014, Jeremy Corbyn said the murder of a charity worker was jingoism. At

the beginning of that speech he mentioned the importance of the

one-minute silence for the memory of Alan Henning who was murdered. What

he has also made clear is responsibility for acts of terrorism

and murder lies with the murder, and something that's really disappointed

me is that the Prime Minister said the other day that in Jeremy

Corbyn's speech on this on Monday, he said... Whether she agrees with

him on his politics, she knows he didn't say that in his speech, but

what troubles me is you have got a Prime Minister who must have sat

down with her advisers earlier that day and said, well I do know he

didn't say that but if we say he did we might win some votes. I think

that is shameful and it shows Theresa May cannot be trusted. These

issues should transcend party politics. We need to pull together

on this issue. Thank you very much. Well, the Conservatives have

promised a new statutory commission The party says it will identify

extremism, including the "non-violent" kind,

and help communities stand up to it. Also this morning,

the Security Minister, Ben Wallace, has attacked internet giants

for failing to tackle terror online, and accused them

of being ruthless money-makers. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Those comments you have made about social media companies failing in

their responsibility to take down extremist material, what will you do

to compel them? I think we will look at the range of options. The Germans

have proposed a fine, we are not sure whether that will work, but

there are range of pressures we can put onto some of these companies.

Some have complied. In the article in the Sunday Telegraph today I did

say it is not all of them. They are not immune to pressure. We can do

internationally, and the Prime Minister urged at the G7 and

international response. I think there are a range of issues. We

could change the law. You mentioned the G7, and rhetoric and warm words

are fine to an extent but it is action people want. If you have made

these impassioned remarks in the newspapers about them failing to do

the job, people want to know what powers do you have now to say to

social media companies take down this material? We have an act that

was recently passed. In this area we have just finished consulting on one

of the areas we could use but we cannot pre-empt the consultation. We

have right now officials from my department over in the United States

with American officials working with CSPs because what we see is that

they do respond to pressure. The best example is we think they have

the technology and the capability to change the algorithms they use that

maximise profit over safety. But you are relying on these companies

devoting more resources to this line of work that you would like to see

them do. Have you got any evidence they will do that? They said, only a

few weeks ago before the election was called the Home Secretary hosted

a Round Table with them. We have evidence they are trying to improve

it. A few are refusing to or being difficult, and that's why the Prime

Minister was right to step up not only the language she was using but

to say we are not going to allow this to progress any more. People

will be worried about who will make the judgment about what is

unacceptable and what should be taken down. Let me show you this,

which was shared widely across social media. If you read that quote

you could argue it is at the same end if you like. The man in the

picture is a terrorist hate preacher, the jihadist who was

killed in Yemen by the Americans. Is this the sort of thing you would be

demanding social media companies take down? You have to look at the

context it was deployed in. I could show you some of the 270,000 pieces

we have had removed since 2010 from internet sites that have been

extreme. The big issue is not often the individual image, it is the way

these companies set up the algorithms to link you. If you were

watching that on Facebook delivered to you, perhaps you would like to

look at this, because that's how they set it up. If you go onto

YouTube, you can get let down the path from looking at Manchester... I

understand your example, but from a practical level are you expecting

media companies to take down that sort of posts if it appeared? Yes...

You are? Who will make the decisions about what will radicalise young

people that could lead someone down the path to let off a bomb? If I

invite your viewers to look at the work the Guardian have done on

Facebook guidance, to say for example it is OK to produce videos

or broadcast videos of seven-year-olds being bullied as

long as it wasn't accompanied by captions, I don't think you need to

be an expert to say that is not acceptable. Something more worrying

for you as a journalist and me as a politician, another set of guidance

that says... I think this is quite menacing... That certain people

don't deserve our protection. That includes journalists and politicians

and people who are controversial. So I think there is more work to be

done but at the end of the day it is the pathway this stuff leads to. It

is more about examining how much progress you can make. The

Government says there are up to 23,000 potential terrorist attackers

in this country, 3000 of those posing a serious threat being

monitored. That is pretty disturbing, these are big numbers.

Yes, and the tragedy of Manchester shows this is not about failure, it

is about the scale of the challenge we face and that is why it is

important that alongside people is powers. Should you double the size

of MI5 for example? We have increased year-on-year in real terms

not only the money but the numbers of people in MI5. It is now 2000 we

have committed to increased to... Before the attack. Before our

manifesto we had recruited, we have increased the whole of government

spending on counterterrorism from ?11.7 billion in 2015 up to 15.7

billion. Would you expand the number of people in MI5? I have asked them

on a regular basis if they have the resource if they are happy with it,

and the answer comes back time and time again, yes we are. You have

quite extensive powers at your disposal, the question is if you are

using them. Measures were introduced in 2012 to replace control orders,

but they have rarely been used. Only seven are currently in operation.

Why? Because there are a whole... It is just one tool in the tool box.

Other powers we use, we take away people's passports if we think they

are about to travel. How many? I cannot comment, it is a sensitive

issue. Plenty of people are finding their passport has been removed and

at the same time we strip people of citizenship to make sure they don't

come back. On top of that, because of the investment made in GCHQ, MI5

and counterterrorism, we have more powers and more ability to monitor

them. But are you using them enough? Only seven TPIMs are in operation.

You won't give me any of the other measures at your disposal, but if

they are only in single figures, that doesn't seem to compare with

the numbers who are being monitored. Also, we have to strike a balance

between... We have to satisfy the court so we have to make sure there

is enough evidence to restrict people's freedoms. TPIMs do all

sorts of good things to keep people safe. It sends people away from

where they live, it tags them... I tell you why they are better. The

control orders were on track to be struck down by the courts because

one of the things we have to satisfy is the courts but we also have to

satisfy, we have to make sure we get the balance between the community is

right and the measures we take. If we alienate our communities, we

won't get the intelligence that allows us to catch it. There is no

point in having more police and intelligence services if you don't

give them the powers to do the job. Jeremy Corbyn were licensed James

Bond to do precisely nothing. And -- thank you.

The revelation that the Manchester suicide bomber, 22-year-old

Salman Abedi, was born in this country has raised fresh concerns

about the effectiveness of the UK's counter-extremism policy.

In a moment we'll be talking to two people who've spent their careers

investigating radicalisation in the UK.

Douglas Murray, of the Henry Jackson Society,

and Sara Khan, author of The Battle for British Islam and CEO

of the counter-extremism organisation Inspire.

We asked both for a personal take on how to confront the problem

of Islamist extremism. First up, here's Douglas Murray.

Even after all these dead, all this mourning and defiance,

We remain stuck in the John Lennon response to terrorism -

Our politicians still refuse to accurately identify

the sources of the problem, and polite society

This country gave asylum to the Libyan parents of Salman Abedi.

Their son repaid that generosity by killing 22 British people,

one for each year of life this country had given him.

We need to think far more deeply about all this.

Eastern Europe doesn't have an Islamic terrorism problem

France has the worst problem because it has the most Islam.

Are we ever going to draw any lessons from this?

For the time being, the game is to be as inoffensive as possible.

The rot isn't just within the Muslim communities.

Consider all those retired British officials and others who shill,

and are in the pay of the Saudis and other foreign states,

even while they pump the extreme versions of Islam into our country.

It is high time we became serious too.

Islamist extremism is flourishing in our country.

We're failing to defeat it, so what can we do about it?

Whenever I say we must counter those Muslim organisations

who are promoting hatred, discrimination, and sometimes even

violence, I'm often either ignored by some politicians out

of a misplaced fear of cultural sensitivity, or I find myself

experiencing abuse by some of my fellow Muslims.

These groups and their sympathisers tour Muslim communities,

hold events, and have hundreds of thousands of followers

Yet there is little counter challenge to their toxic

anti-Western narrative, which includes opposition

I've seen politicians and charities partner

with and support some of these voices and groups.

Many anti-racist groups will challenge those on the far

right but not Muslim hate preachers, in the erroneous belief that to do

But it's Islamophobic not to challenge them because it implies

Following the attack on Monday, it cannot be business as usual.

We must counter those who seek to divide us.

Sarah Karen Allen Douglas Murray join me know. You wrote a book,

strange death of Europe. What did you mean in your film when you said,

let's get serious? Several things. Let me give you one example. The

young man who carried out this atrocious attack was a student at

Salford University for two years. He was on a campus which is, from its

leadership to its student leadership, opposes all aspects of

the government's only counter extremism programme. They boast they

are boycotting it. They always did this. The university he was at was

against the only counter extremism policy this state has. This is just

one example of a much bigger problem. What are you suggesting?

Shut down the University? Force them to change their policies? I think in

the case of Salford, which discourages students from reporting

Islamic extremism... When you discover you have produced a suicide

bomber in Manchester, you should be held responsible. What do you say to

that? I think it is quite clear from I am experienced there have been

politicians who have undermined Prevent, community organisations,

Islamist groups who have been at the forefront of undermining and

countering Prevent, but also wider counter extremism measures. Islamist

-- Islamist extremes and has flourished in this country. If

Summer Rae had given us a crystal ball ten years ago and said, look

forward and you will see hundreds of people leave this country to join

Isis, we will have hundreds of people convicted of Islamist

offences, I think we would have been quite shocked that things have got

worse as opposed to getting better. Douglas Murray, the essence of your

argument when you made the comparison between the numbers of

Muslims in other countries is that we have too much Islam in Britain?

The aunt Tilly Muslim Brotherhood give is that the answer to

absolutely everything is Islam. Less Islam is a good thing. Let me

finish. The Islamic world is in the middle of a very serious problem. It

has been going on since the beginning. I think it is not worth

continuing to risk our own security simply in order to be politically

correct. I would disagree with Douglas on that. Nobody is going to

deny that since the end of the 20th century there has been a rise in

Islamist extreme terror organisations. Yes, there is a

crisis within contemporary Islam, but there is a class. There are

competing claims about what the faith stands for. While we are

seeing Islamist terror organisations, leading theologians

are saying that the concept of a caliphate is outdated. Muslims

should be adopting a human rights culture. I entirely agree with that.

There are obviously people trying to counter that. I would urge us to

take the long view. In the history of Islam there have been many

reformers. Most of the time they have ended a up being the ones on

the brunt of the violence. I deeply resent what you and others do in

this country. I want you to win. But they are a Billy good minority. A

poll last year found that two thirds of British Muslims found they would

not report a family member they found to be involved in extremism to

the police. You are proposing more Draconian measures. I wish they

could win. We should do everything we can to support people like that.

What we should recognise the scale of the problem is beyond our current

understanding. You counter radicalisation on a university

campus or online? Discussion we had with Ben Wallace about the material

that is out there. If we pursue in a hard-line way perhaps the sort of

thing Douglas Murray is suggesting, gone is freedom of speech, gone is

freedom of debate and discussion? The best way to counter extremism is

through the prism of human rights. We cannot abandon our human rights

to fight extremism. Where I think we are going wrong, where there is a

gap, is the lack of counter work to challenge Islamist ideals. How many

people are going to say we need to counter that strict narrative? That

is where we are not doing enough work. What about the human rights

point, that you cannot take away people's human rights? I'm not

suggesting that. I'm suggesting we do things that ensure that 22 people

don't get blown up on an average Monday again, OK? Dissent to be

opposed to people want to blow up our daughters is not opposing human

rights. If you're taking government money and you are an institution

like Salford University you should be held responsible for not

cooperating with standard security measures. You can challenge

extremism without abandoning human rights. We have got to actually

counter the Islamist narrative. We're not doing enough. This is not

about closing down free speech. This is encouraging it. This is the most

effective way of countering the Islamist narrative. Why isn't it

doing better? A number of reasons. One is there is a denial taking

place. A lot of apologetics. Part of it is the way we talk about Muslims

in this country. We use the term Muslim community as if they are

homogenous. There is a positive trend but there is a negative trend

among British Muslims. We need to counter those promoting the idea

that Muslims are part of a collective identity. I agree. It is

also the case there is massive push back because a lot of Muslims are

defending the faith in this country. We think we can push them down a

better path but they are defending absolutely everything. We need to

get real about that. Thank you very much.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead.

Hello and welcome to your local part of the show in a week in which seven

North East people lost their lives in the Manchester bombing.

We'll be discussing that and Labour's pledge to reverse cuts

to the police and emergency services, which Jeremy Corbyn

says is making the fight against terrorism even harder.

My guests are James Wharton, who is hoping to retain

his Stockton South seat for the Conservatives.

Laura Pidcock, who is standing for Labour in the North West

Anne Marie Curry is the Liberal Democrat contender in Darlington.

Andy Redfearn is the Green Party's candidate in Gateshead.

We'll also be taking a look at another of the big issues

in the North in this election - transport.

Which party, if any, will deliver much-needed

investment in our roads, railways and the Tyne

Let's start with the response in our region to the attack

Hundreds of people turned out at a vigil in Newcastle

to show their support and solidarity with those affected.

While flags were flown at half-mast and flowers laid

at the Town Hall in South Shields, as well as at many other public

buildings across the region, a minute's silence was observed

A lot of emotion this week, some defiance, determination not to be

beaten by the terrorists. It is enough being done to protect the

public? I think it is very difficult to counter these sort of threats,

individuals motivated by things they see or read online or things that

they see in their own lives. The security services do an incredibly

good job. A number of attacks have been stopped. We always need to be

vigilant and careful. We rely on communities to work with our

security services to prevent this sort of thing, but we need to

recognise the emergency services, security services doing a good job

and often difficult circumstances. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn head to

the right tone with his response? I want to starts by saying that I

couldn't stop thinking about my three nieces on that day because

they really wanted to go to that concept. I asked them after the

event that they would still want to go to construct and they all said

yes. That is the kind of defiance that we need. The emergency services

did an incredible job. It brings out the best in people. They saved

whoever they save. Once people are less raw, once the nation has the

chance to grieve, I think there are questions to be answered about

whether cutting 20,000 police from our streets had an impact on the

kind of intelligence we are able to gather. Jeremy Corbyn raised on

Friday, was that too soon? They are conversations happening on the

doorstep so he is raising the voice of the people. What does follow

these numbers do to their ability to gather information? There is no

evidence that the attack on Manchester could have been prevented

by more police on the street. I work with young people over the last

eight years, and I have worked with extreme young people, with young

people radicalise towards the far right. When we look at interventions

for those jumpy but we see the impact of cuts. We say, can we

repair them there, can we have a youth worker... You can say that the

cuts had anything to do with that motivation for the person who

planted the bombs in Manchester? That person is responsible for what

they did. When we have all had time to grieve, there are questions to be

answered about the police cuts. High up these officers are saying that

the piece are under pressure. It is valid for boaters to look at this

and say I would be safer if these cuts to boost officers hadn't

happened? It is perfectly valid reporters to make judgments. The

truth is that this sort of activity is not straightforward old-fashioned

policing. It is very complex and requires a complex response which

includes the security services. Nonetheless, people will have a

choice in this election to feel safe with Jeremy Corbyn Ord Theresa May.

Labour promising more police officers, you're not. Labour seems

to have rediscovered the magic money tree and the selection. In Jeremy

Corbyn you have a leader that this week on Terror and the causes of it,

and Theresa May as an experienced Home Secretary. Tim Farron criticise

Jeremy Corbyn scented with politics before people on Thursday. There is

a time and a place to do it. A couple of days after the event is

not the right time to do it. Maybe in a week's time would been a better

time because people then have got over the horrific shock. A lot of

people are in shock about the situation. Do you disagree with the

general thrust of what he said? I have concerns because the reporter,

that the imam and Muslim community were telling the police did this guy

had gone rogue yet nothing was done. Was that due to lack of policing or

was it due to people not believing the imam? That needs to be

investigated. The response has been firm on this post the attack. The

terror alert level has been lowered. Could more have been done? It is

hard to say looking back in hindsight that nothing more could

have been done. Clearly lots more could have been done in this

specific case. What people are interested in is what can we do on a

more general level to make our country safer, to make people feel

more included? For somebody to actually want to blow themselves up

and kill other people... What do you think is the solution? We have

created a culture in this country or allowed a culture to beat created,

particularly in the light of Brexit, for it to be OK for people to say

things that are wrong and reassessed and cause people to feel

marginalised, disadvantaged. We don't know what the motivation of

this man was. He was a young man he has clearly decided his only hope

unlike this to blow himself up. Somebody has done the evil thing of

persuading him that was the right thing to do. People behind that of

the people we should be making sure we find. It is not a great issue for

Labour, the polls suggest that people trust Theresa May over Jeremy

Corbyn on this issue. Amber Rudd admitted after this that she needed

to look again at police cuts. I am not saying anything outrageous or

anything the Home Secretary has not said, that there would be a rethink

of the police cuts. It makes people feel secure is that they know they

have a lease officers who are not stressed than being supported. That

bomber was responsible for his actions. Is it so wrong for Labour

leader make some connection with saying that foreign wars, the

instability of foreign countries, is a problem that feeds this. Jeremy

Corbyn is entitled to make the contribution as he sees fit. Most

people looking at what he said at his track record in Parliament, over

his entire life in politics, see somebody who cannot be trusted on

this issue. Well, let's look at an issue

now that doesn't always gets much attention at a general

election - transport. It is crucial of course,

as anybody who has battled through roadworks or stood for hours

in an overcrowded But investment is also vital

for the region's economic success. The North East and Cumbria has

lagged far behind London and the South East in transport

spending for years, but now the parties are making

promises to change all that. Washington, Tyne and Wear,

and a man on the mission trying And this, apparently,

is Railway Terrace. But, sadly, it seems I am

destined for disappointment. Well, just my luck, I seem to have

missed the last train here by 54 years because,

actually, there has been no train station here in Washington,

not even a link to the Tyne That is despite an 80,000

population that, as you can Washington is the largest town

in the North with no trains. And that means a lot of this,

waiting for buses, especially for Adam Robson during his time

at Newcastle College. It took me well over

an hour, two buses and then eventually the Metro,

to get there and it I was thinking there

are probably thousands of people within Washington who would commute

to Newcastle and if they don't drive, they will probably have

to go through equally But Adam didn't take

that lying down. He started a campaign to bring

the Metro to Washington, Nowadays, he is at university,

but remains convinced I did enjoy growing up

in Washington, but if I came back to work in the North East I would

probably choose somewhere else. So having the Metro here

could make the difference between whether you come back

here or not, really? But even the existing

Metro has problems. This station needs TLC

and the trains are even worse - 40 years old and increasingly

unreliable. A ?500 million bid for new

investment is with ministers now. Campaigning passengers say the cash

should be found and without delay. We need new trains,

we need a new power system, we need infrastructure or we close

the Metro down and that's And the infrastructure on the roads

just couldn't cope with that, so it's not just for people

who travel by Metro, it's for the whole of the North East

that this is needed. But at least our roads

are seeing some investment, including a new ?100 million bridge

across the Wear. But, actually, this is more

than just about building a spectacular bridge or even cutting

journey times because the hope is that when this opens

in about a year's time it will help to regenerate Sunderland

and bring new jobs to both Further north in Cramlington,

an example of investment This ?2 million lorry test centre

was built by a local haulier, but the boss here still wants to see

the brakes taken off We have talked now for probably 30,

40 years about dualling the A1. We are always more comfortable

when we see the diggers on the road. Businesses like ours invest

when we can see what the future is. This facility we are in today,

for example, the vehicle testing centre, is built at the junction

of the A19 and A1. It is here because the

road network is here. The same would happen

if the roads were further north. The same would happen if the roads

were built further north. Back in Washington,

the weeds continue to grow Of course, this isn't the only place

waiting for transport investment. Teesside would love its own Metro,

Ashington the return of passenger services,

West Cumbrians the So wouldn't it would be nice

if we could make decisions about that here rather than waiting

for Westminster and Whitehall? Some say that could happen

if councils and mayors were given more control over local taxes

and allowed to borrow to invest. We really think the North should be

leading not pleading Local leaders should have the kind

of control necessary to be able to make the investments

that they know are going to benefit the local area, and also be able

to borrow upfront to fund that economic growth that

will come in the future. For now, though, the people

of Washington and beyond must wait to see what Westminster politicians

promise and, more crucially, John McDonnell came up a few weeks

before the election and pledged Metro investment, hundreds of

millions of pounds of investment. Labour and the selection is

promising to pay for everything for everyone and they don't know whether

money is going come from. They are going to borrow that money and put

it into an infrastructure fund. They are going to borrow some. There

would be huge tax rises needed if they were to deliver on what they

are saying. Transport investment is important for growth. We want to see

more in the North. All politicians in our region, whoever is elected,

we will need to make the case to get that investment into the north-east.

The case at the moment is being made by Labour. Metro investment is

critical, we have pledged Labour, not from you. The Labour manifesto

is a fantasy shopping list. Better than no pledge at all. We have seen

transport for London established, significant investment on our roads,

but we need to do more. We need to make a case for this region. ?500

million for the Metro, that will be considered against other bids around

the country. We need to make our case is the strongest and

successful. You are proposing too great a mountain of debt to fund

them. It is not credible. That is not true. The Tories are on the

roads here because we have costed manifesto. They don't. They talk

about consultations and Green Paper is, when you are asking the public

to place trust in you... You are going to borrow a massive wedge of

money. It is cost neutral if you are borrowing to invest. It costs us and

massive amount of money to have privatised rail systems at the

moment when that money could be coming back into the Treasury. It

doesn't make any sense... As the Minister for the Northern powerhouse

and shareholders that could be coming into the Treasury, the

Conservatives have presided over a massive transport authority. It is

over ?1000 per head in the south-east, it is only ?200 per head

in the North East. We are seeing nutrients on the lines... Labour's

rhetoric doesn't match up to what is happening, does it? We have seen bus

deregulation, seeing the people in North West Durham are completely cut

off, they can't get buses on Sundays or bank holidays. They have to walk

for hours to get to a shopping centre. Who would say local

authorities should be able to set timetables and routes. Labour has

come up with a plan to spend hundreds of millions of pounds. They

are in a better position to deliver the newcomers away but would you? Is

what Labour and the Tories are banking on his infinite growth,

infinite resources, infinite everything because that high

everything will be funded. We think that should be more questions about

how we just only build more stuff, but begin to ask questions about why

people need to travel? When the A1 was recently upgraded through to

Newcastle, the upgrade there, employers knew it was coming, Newton

was going to be chaos, they came up a full-time of creative ways to work

with their employees, early start, early finishes, traffic fell. If you

want your road in your area improved, don't go green? If you

want to have cheap foreign travel, dopant green? It is easy to do

through that kind of stuff at us. I couldn't get the bus here today

because the buses couldn't get me here. Rather than spending billions

of pounds investing three miles on the A1 without one single point been

spent on bus pass, cycle lanes. We would spend it on making Joe the

buses were regulated again so we could ensure people to get public

transport again. Looking at your manifesto, take promises and warm

words. No even than two dual the A1. words. No even than two dual the A1.

Lib Dems locally are campaigning locally to do one all the way up.

Why wasn't that in the manifesto? The manifesto is a national policy.

believe that is the right thing to believe that is the right thing to

are you promising? We are promising are you promising? We are promising

to get more sustainable transport, give a reduction in fares for 18-21

-year-olds, to get the blood of using the buses. But private

companies using the buses, they will only go where they can get a return

on the journey. Or we could get more people using the buses...

Well, the campaign is entering its last full week.

So far, we've seen Theresa May in Northumberland and in North Shields.

UKIP leader Paul Nuttall stopped off briefly in Hartlepool.

But no sign yet of Jeremy Corbyn, although we do understand

he will make an appearance in the North East

So let's take stock of what we've seen so far and look ahead

The polls have suggested that Labour is picking up support, but goodness

knows that they are right, we have been better map -- by that before.

There was a real sea change when both manifestos came out. People

could see a stark contrast between what the Labour Party was offering

knocked on doors when people were knocked on doors when people were

really scared that the rooms were going to be taken of them if they

had to use to social care system. had to use to social care system.

There are some affluent places in North West Durham as well, and older

people were scared. People started to see a real offer that we are

about a party of investing to grow. We are a party that is interested in

making sure that we had signed finances through fiscal credibility

rule and we have costed manifesto. The Tories have costed there is.

There is already talk of relaunching the Conservative campaign. It has

been a bit lacklustre. There were some positive policies in the Labour

manifesto that people could get hold of, what was there in the

Conservative manifesto apart from doom and gloom over social care? I

think the polls have narrowed and this election is in contention. You

can't assume that result is going to prevail. At the beginning of it like

it was going to be an easy win for the Conservatives and Theresa May.

That is not the case any more. Labour have promised everything to

everyone. Principal effect a generation of people in this country

and people have to vote between Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn. Making

the presidential hasn't worked so far. The tarnish has come Theresa

May in the last few weeks about what has been happening. I would love to

sit here and say we are going to glide to a win, but the polls have

narrowed. The big issue that will affect this were a generation is he

will undergo sea of exit, and that will either be Theresa May or Jeremy

Corbyn. Ten days to go, no sign of a Lib Dem left off. No sign of

high-profile campaigning from your party. If anything, your voters

drifting to Labour. I think it is a lot of tactical voting that is

happening across the region. Because of that we may lose out in our

nontargeted seats. We have plenty of seats around the country whether

tactical voting has helped us. Apart from Berwick, it is pretty grim.

Derek is getting a good response on the seats. They are squeezing the

Labour vote and it seems to be working there. Labour is the only

challenge to the Conservatives, is what many people are saying. It has

been for many years. Some people will giving get the chance to vote

Green. But the most part your party are supportive of Jeremy Corbyn, so

why do but the vote in other places to the Greens? Sums Labour policies

that the Green party can overlap with. In other areas, we don't feel

that Jeremy Corbyn is taking the Labour Party to a place that we

don't think right. We would abandon Trident. We would save us and the

country ?10 billion. It is important that we are campaigning on those

issues, issues like electoral reform, issues about sustainability.

The Tories had a manifesto that said there are five big issues facing

this country and not one of them was the environment. How could that be?

You might be looking to reduce the scale of debate, but it was to be a

big one. We are taking every vote seriously. We're right there all day

everyday... Are you really think we can win? I think there has been an

atmospheric change in the country so I think we can win. Personal debt in

this country is ?14,000 per household. Why is that, because

people's pay has been frozen and they are on low pay. We propose to

change all of that. You have to put some hope back into your campaign,

haven't you? A positive future? Absolutely, and I think there is,

but that doesn't change the fact that this is about Brexit. I think

there is a lot of hope in Brexit. On Tuesday we'll be in Gateshead

where an audience of voters from across the North East

and Cumbria will be putting THEIR questions

to a panel of candidates re-elected. Is the only choice for

strong and stable leadership. Now, after the Manchester attack,

will the final week of election campaigning different in tone from

what came before? My panel are here. Tim Marshall, it will be very front

of Centre for the next few days. Is that a good thing for the election

if it is going to be framed to who do you feel more safe with? It is

inevitable but I think it will only be part of the election. As I said

before the opt out, for many voters this is also about economics,

unemployment. It is not all about Brexit, nor is it only about

security. What it will do, I hope, is get the tone of the debate right.

Although I have already seen the tone being lowered. I wasn't

impressed with Mr Corbyn's speech last week blaming it on a foreign

policy, which is a wafer thin analysis of what is going on.

Inappropriate timing too soon? No, I think the argument is utter

nonsense. I don't want to attack just one side. The Conservative

party, I've forgotten which minister has already said that we would be

safer under a Tory Prime Minister, it has got nothing to do with Labour

or Tory government, the next Islamic attack. It is to do with jihadist

ideology, not party policies. You raise an important issue about tone.

It also points to a broader argument, one we were having

earlier, has politics been two courses with this issue of

extremism? Has the conversation about it tiptoed around some of the

sensitive issues? And by the media. You highlight the problem of this

being part of the election campaign by saying, has politics been too

cautious? Who do you mean by politics? And in an election

campaign there is a duty to be a divide, and adamant about values,

policies etc. Security is an issue that transcends those political

divides. So I think it is deeply unhealthy. It is nobody's fault a

tragedy occurred. But if you ask me does it help or enhance an election

debate? Emphatically not. A tragic event brings politics, as you call

it, together. Security is an issue that is complex and doesn't divide

neatly. Elections are political battles, by definition. So I think

the coming together of this, a tragedy occurred anyway, but it is

an unfortunate context. Do you agree or do you think this is a time to

talk about these issues? Is it a time to review the level of

argument? This is a political debate. I personally think the

politicians should have been out and about on Wednesday. There is no

wrong time to get it right. We mustn't let the terrorists affect

our way of life. But they have when we disrupt the election campaign. It

may be party political. But for a lot of voters, including me, I want

to hear from party leaders. What do you plan to do about this? Right

now, I've not heard anything that suggests any of these parties have

got to grips with the real problem, which is that we are not actually

tackling the problem in our midst. Douglas Murray touched on it

earlier. We have not even come to grips with the scale of the problem.

Does Labour have a grip -- Power Point in terms of terrorist

legislation? It is complicated. And not all of it has worked or is used

enough by government? It is another example where this doesn't work in

an election debate because David Davis has opposed a lot of this

terrorism legislation. He is now heading Brexit. There is a civil

liberties argument which I personally have doubts about. Again,

it brings people together from the major parties. And Corbyn didn't

actually say it was the cause of terrorism, British foreign policy,

but it helped to facilitate terrorism, which is a different

argument. Again, that would be supported by some Tories as well.

That is why it is difficult in an election campaign for this issue to

dominate. The front page of the Sunday Times talks about a campaign

relaunch, which may not, grow as a great surprise following the social

care fiasco. Do we know what that will entail? It sounds like Boris

Johnson will play a role. The whole point is it was all about Theresa

May and it turns out that is not quite good enough. The more we have

seen of Theresa May, the less impressive she has looked. Certainly

the Andrew Neil interview just repeating the same thing again and

again. Voters don't like that. They like people who are honest and

actually engage with them. When we see beat interviews in the next few

days, I think it will be interesting to see if she changes tack and tries

to engage with what people are asking. If it is back to leadership

and Brexit, and the economy, will that be more comfortable ground? I

think so. I understand framing it in terms of Brexit. But she has got to

broaden it out. I think that is why she is broadening it out. I don't

think the tragic events will absolutely dominate. That would be a

small victory for terrorism. This is a country of 65 million people with

an awful lot of issues. We have 65 million votes, well, 65 million

people with opinions in two weeks. It is quite a long campaign. There

is still time to go. What do you think Labour will be focusing on

from now on? I would imagine they will look very closely at where they

are well ahead in the opinion polls and focus on that relentlessly.

Public services, NHS etc. And try to get it off as soon as possible from

security and fees is used which, on one level at least, appear to be a

gift to the Conservatives. I assume that is what they are going to do.

But this is a very unpredictable campaign where nothing has gone

according to plan. Let's look ahead. On Wednesday evening we have got an

election debate. It is in Cambridge. Leaders of some of the parties.

Amber Rudd will be representing the Conservatives. We don't know yet who

will represent Labour. Today we have had Amber Road and Diane Abbott

against each other on Andrew Marr. Let's have a look. I think there is

something to be said for a Home Secretary who has actually worked in

the Home Office. I work in the home office for nearly three years as a

graduate trainee. This government has always felt that urgency. That

is why we have been putting in additional money. It is significant

that the commission for extremism in the manifesto was put in before

Manchester. We need to do more. You voted against prescribing those

groups. Because there were groups on that list I deemed to be dissidents

rather than terrorist organisations. We are making good progress with the

companies who put in place encryption. We will continue to

build on that. It was 34 years ago. I had a rather splendid Afro at the

time. I don't have the same hairstyle. And I don't have the same

views. It is 34 years on. The hairstyle has gone. Some of the

views have gone. So you no longer, you regret what you said about the

IRA? The hairstyle has gone, the views have gone. I would say to

Diane Abbott that I have changed my hairstyle are few times in 34 years

but I have not changed my view of how we keep the British public safe.

Let's get away from hairstyle sides talk about the prospect of the two

of them taking part in the election debate. Would you like to see that?

On one level I would like to see it and another the level I would like

to see an intelligent debate. I'm glad I never had an Afro or

supported the IRA. Whenever Diane Abbott steps out in a TV studio or a

radio studio, Labour haemorrhage votes. She cannot say things like my

regret supporting this or that legislation. She is an absolute

disaster. If Labour put her up, they are beyond mad. Who do you think

Labour should put up? By the way, I did have an Afro! I based my whole

log on Kevin Keegan and it was good. That is the wrong question. I will

explain why. The Labour campaign, it seems to me there were only five or

six people put up. That is the fault of others who refused to take part.

It also shows the degree to which the current leadership can only rely

on five or six people. I would imagine we are talking about a pool

of five or six people. As for my judgment as to who the best public

performer is in that pool, it would be by some margin John McDonnell,

who is a very good interviewee and performer. I think he is a very good

performer. It would come back to the economy at some point, presumably.

But then it comes back to the IRA. I don't think the debate will be very

illuminating. I think if Amber Rudd is there, Diane Abbott should be

there. I think the leaders should be debating. Some people say it is

froth. I think the leader -- the electorate gets a sense of the

leaders. On haircuts, I would like to thank both of them are talking

about the haircuts. I am looking forward to tomorrow's papers and the

theme that will run through the week. Let's not finish on the hair.

Thank you very much for being our guests. That is it for today. Thank

the panel for Jonny May. Andrew Neil will be back next weekend. And I

will be back on BBC Two on Tuesday. That is at midday with more daily

politics. In the meantime, have a very lovely bank holiday. From all

of us here, bye-bye.