21/05/2017 Sunday Politics North West

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?

Had your fill of professional politicians?

Maybe plump for a pub landlord instead?

Today, we're looking beyond the mainstream.

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 say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland and Wales. Had your fill of

professional politicians? Why not plump for a pub

landlord instead? I'm up against the machine

obviously, so I haven't got the numbers of feet on the ground and

finances. Well, they might fancy a pint,

but my guests will have to wait Lucy Powell is the Labour candidate

for Manchester Central, Graham Brady is standing

for the conservatives And Tina Rothery is the Green

Party's candidate in Fylde. Graham, is the champagne

back in the fridge? Well, you should never have

champagne before an election has been mine and I think it's a timely

reminder. We got some serious choices as a nation. Lucy, how has

your manifesto gone down and when you have been out campaigning.

Samovar populism -- policies have been very popular on the doorstep.

We're seeing the real meat of the campaign now, there are some very

taking any big decisions and the taking any big decisions and the

Tories an decisions are being met with a lot of concern. Watching me

expect from your manifesto next meeting? The left right manifestos

have been quite starkly laid out have been quite starkly laid out

from both the left and the right. We can hold our position as we normally

do on holding parties to account on the environment issue. Because if we

have an unhealthy population and air and water quality is at risk, then

much more is at stake. It impacts the NHS, the ability to make their

way in life, jobs, and security. And of course our position across the

world an environmental impacts. Looking forward to hearing more

about that, but first the parties have put their policies on the

table. The menu includes re-nationalising

railways, paying for home-care costs, and possibly even backing

out of Brexit. But which one's

tempting most voters? King Faisal of Iraq

on a tour of a cotton It's the town's industrial heritage

that helped set it up But with two visits in a month,

Conservative Theresa May hopes to enjoy her own coronation

by picking up votes She claims her party represents

ordinary working people, and at a computer session

for job-seekers at Breightmet That's despite him being out

of work for eight years. To take the level of unemployment

down to what she has taken it down This town-centre market is in

the Bolton North East constituency, They have a majority

of around 4,500, Just up the road, in Bolton West,

the roles are reversed. Labour needs to hold on here and win

that back if it's got any hope So, what do people here think

about what's on the menu The Conservatives are promising

more money for the NHS, funded by a new means test

on winter fuel payments. They're also asking people

with assets of more than ?100,000 They, again, say they'll cut net

migration below 100,000. I think she says what she means

and I hate to say it, but she's probably a bit

like Mrs Thatcher, but a lot nicer. ?7.50 as minimum wage and, you know,

prices of things have So, for me, I don't think

that should continue. Labour say that they'd

renationalise the railways, They'd reintroduce the 50p rate

of tax on the highest earners and provide more free childcare,

while scrapping tuition fees. I do think that the Labour Party

manifesto is a bit odd. They don't think that's

going be a winner, really. It's certainly caught a lot

of people eyes that I know of, and these are, I wouldn't

say dyed-in-the-wool I don't believe that they are

capable of actually getting a good deal for us in

Brexit, so I don't know Up the road in Burnley,

there's another battle for votes. Here, it's the Lib Dems

who are chasing Labour. I think the Lib Dems

are offering the best package We're offering training

and skills for young people, we're offering money for education,

and the biggest thing, we're offering money,

certainly increasing spending, So, the battle for hearts

and minds goes on. It could be in places like Bolton

and Burnley that this Graham, we will start to be

Conservative manifesto. It's been perceived by many including the

Times and e-mail on Sunday as an attack on the wealthy and

pensioners. How is it going down in some of the wealthiest parts of the

North West. Goal I been out on the street talking to people about these

things and certainly there are concerns about these things that

people recognise it as an attempt to deal with a looming crisis in social

care. People know something has to be done, we can't carry on refusing

to tackle the problem. Can use CYP bowl think it is an inheritance tax

in it different way? Of course I can see how people would be unhappy with

it about how you raise that money people would be unhappy. We have

defined a way that is fairer. This increases the amount of money that

people can keep and know they can protect, and it also means that

people who are more affluent will be making some contribution to their

own care. Of course I can understand why people have reservations. Is

that fair that there is a greater redistribution of wealth? But the

surprising about the Tory proposal was a cap on the cat -- cost of care

is a fair method. So given that the kids to reduce activity should be

saying that the people shouldn't be paying more than ?75,000 towards the

cost of their care, it means that those who have the longest term

needs, those with dementia for example, why is this not a fair way?

Firstly because people who need care at home are coming into this

arrangement, so that is going to bring a lot of people into it, but

think it is a particularly unfair for those who require long-term care

over a long period through no fault of their own because they get a

health issue like dementia, which means that they might see all of

their assets going apart from the last 100,000. When you look at some

of the people who live in your constituency who don't have assets

of ?100,000, they need contributions from those who can afford it then

they? That's why we've got to look at this issue and the fairest way of

dealing with it, but I think that the cap on the cost of care is a

much fairer way of looking at it and I think that many people in my

constituency who have spent a long time trying to buy their own home,

and may have a home that is only worth 100- to ?120,000 or a formal

council property I now faced with a lot of questions with this proposal.

Nobody would have to sell their home to get care because it would happen

after they have died. Let speak to Tim Farron.

The Lib Dem leader and MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale,

Tim Farron, was campaigning in their target seat

of Hazel Grove on Friday, fresh from the ITV leaders' debate.

If your husband has dementia and has to go into a nursing home,

your family home will have to be cashed in to pay for it.

If you have dementia or if one of your loved ones has dementia,

We must fight against the dementia tax.

The Liberal Democrats are absolutely determined to keep

Tina, we don't know the details of your manifesto but do you find this

acceptable and to look at some of the State and put that back into

social care system customer what we feel about the contribution that

Howard elderly have contributed to the system over their lives. What

was their contribution and why is it that they are expected to pay for

something that they have contributed to their lives. We would guarantee

that you can keep ?100,000 of assets, so a lot of people will have

greater security, they will be able to keep more their assets to pass

onto children. Based on this attack and pensioners with deservedly has

think people realise this is a think people realise this is a

proper contest in this election, there is a choice, you can is a

Jeremy Corbyn as by Minister. People have be aware that we shouldn't...

Conservatives are saying that gets seats may be lost, if you look at

saying to reason they may be looming saying to reason they may be looming

-- Theresa May may be linked with the left. But I think this does

prove that we have to fight for every seat and every vote. When you

see policies like this that are apparently redistribution of wealth,

the fuel allowance being means tested? I've there is a debate to be

had about but the Conservatives are so many questions unanswered, people

are unsure if they were following to the net out of the net. Many

pensioners, yes of course, you could look at some of the wealthiest

pensioners, but where do you draw that line. I think the Conservatives

have not said what they will draw that line, and many people are

feeling that they will caught. If we come down on the side of the number

of will benefit, because it's actually easier -- on the side of

universal benefits because it's actually easier... There are

people... There are people heading to the polls at the time of their

life when they are concerned? People are concerned that the baby more

money into hammer the National Health Service, will be be able to

find social care will be defined our schools,... People want to know

where they stand on June eight? People wanting -- need-to-know that

they can rely on the Conservatives to fund the national health service.

The policy is that everybody in primary school will have a free

breakfast and I think that is a very good thing to do and probably more

important for children to start the day do you dispute that that will

have a big impact on families having have a big impact on families having

their lunch is taken away? I think this is a small number of people

having a new entitlement extended a couple years ago, I think it was a

questionable thing to do then. It makes much more sense to get more

children starting school brightly. The headlines this week... The

breakfast club, open to everybody would be a good thing, but again,

really difficult things to tackle. The squeeze that has been threatened

on school funding, we are able to deal with that and promised another

4 billion for school funding over the next Parliament that isn't to be

a good contribution guaranteeing a good contribution guaranteeing

that no school will lose funding. that no school will lose funding.

Tina, your manifesto is not out yet, but we will come to you but we do

know that they believed renationalisation of public services

in that. Something that Lucy 's party shares. Do you think it makes

the party look outdated? I think the Green party has stood its ground

since it started. I think people are just beginning to catch up that so

many of our policies have now been many of our policies have now been

adopted by the Labour Party. When adopted by the Labour Party. When

you just said that we need to fund you just said that we need to fund

social care so that people can reassured that that will happen

under the Conservative manifesto, the government has always been at

the ability to find social care adequately, but it's how we spun and

that money -- spend that money. We should be re-tubing to the blues --

British copies. Where's the British bailout, as the bailout for the

people? Are does that make it look like a step back in time,

renationalisation? I like that manifesto, but I did want to vote

Labour? Let's take the issue of renationalisation. On some

utilities, there is a clear argument. At water, there is no

competition there is no Reed monopolies operating around regions.

We've seen water charges go up. I get a lot of messages about people

losing their water charges -- who have seen their water charges rise.

On rail nationalisation would we are talking about is as the contract,

putting them... Gordon in that piece said that he was unemployed and were

still saying that he trusts this government more in terms of getting

him a job? We put forward a manifesto that is about the many not

the few, it is about investing in people, public services. Investing

in communities, making sure that some of our communities here in the

North West are connected to the jobs through better transport, buses,

trains. That they've got the local services that they need to get the

skills, massive investment in education and skills, which, I

think, will help to move our economy forward and make sure people aren't

left behind OK, maybe the mainstream parties have left you a little bit

cold. Well, actually there

are fewer of them than there were two years ago -

668 to be precise. That's the drop in the number

of candidates across the country. But Stuart Pollitt's been to meet

some of the more free thinkers ANNOUNCER: 29,300...

Remember Martin Bell The most famous and successful

independent in our region when he took the Tatton seat

from the Tories in 1997. What you have accomplished

here has been, to me, 20 years on and this time

there are independents standing on issues as diverse as family

values and football. One of them is

Blackburn fan, Duncan. He's fed up with how Rovers' owners

are running the club. Basically, a single issue -

ultimately, to put a football club into safe hands and to really

address some of the problems that we're seeing source

in football at the moment. It is a bit of a drastic step,

something I've never really Do you feel you have any

chance, realistically? I just don't agree with

being taken for granted. Pub owner Terry's hoping to swap

serving regulars for serving his What I want to do, really,

is I want to bring local What I want to do, really,

is I want to bring local Choosing the safest Labour

seat in the country I'm up against the machine,

obviously, so I haven't got the numbers of feet on the ground

and leaflets and finance. The numbers of independents

and smaller parties has fallen from two years ago

when it was nearly 4,000 Some parties, like the English

Democrats and the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition,

aren't fielding any But there are others

who are trying to defy the odds. One of them is Steve Radford

from the Liberal party. It's fielding two candidates

in the north west. I think the whole idea

that the spectrum of politics is either black or white,

right or left, is sheer nonsense. There's many issues that need

exposing, there's many issues that need raising,

and we hope to add to the political debate and give people

a real, positive choice. The problem for smaller parties

in the UK is the electoral system. It's really very difficult

for independents as well. I mean, independents used to be very

common in our system until the 20th century,

and in living memory, there have only really been three

or four independents who've That means the likes of Duncan,

Terry and Steve have an uphill Tina, you're from a smaller party,

the three big ones that people perceive as being the main ones.

Have you seen an increase in people taking an interest in politics

outside of those parties? I think it been hugely inspirational this time

around. Whatever you think about tactical voting, the mere fact that

people are striving for a change from the bottom up when we find that

our electoral system is so ill-equipped for the age we live in

and the type of representation that we want, we have two parties

opposite who have had every opportunity over the decades to fix

every problems there are now claiming that they will fix. Why are

they fix? We have gone through this time and again, election after

election. We get to the same things and the same manifesto promises that

never live up to. People party loyalty is being challenged much

more I isn't it? Is that a good thing? Well, what we are seeing, if

the polls are to be believed, and Emma was a bit wary about that, is

actually people are coming back to the two main political parties in

this election. It was only two or three years ago that everyone was

saying that it was the end of the two party politics system. I think

polling of the highest ratio between Tories and label for many years.

I was in Lancaster and Fleetwood this week,

with a majority over the Conservatives of just 3%.

The Greens have had a smattering of councillors up there in recent

years and there was talk of the party standing

Here's what some left-leaning voters told me, starting

It pushes the Labour Party to adopt policies that are a deeper form of

socialism. This is a marginal constituency so if we vote Green, we

will hand the seat of the Tories as we did a few years ago. I haven't

decided, I'm still wrestling. White macro Billy the I just feel really

sad that I have to make that decision. Do I vote with my heart

over the dreams? Do you think that the Greens should keep forfeiting

candidates to keep the Tories out? The fact that we have a system that

causes this is a problem. It means it's a two horse race and the two

horse races black in the race don't want to change that. We need other

voices, other shades of the community and more diversity. This

is what is being hindered. We hear it in the population when we are out

campaigning. People are being told that a vote for a green is not going

to get you want. Tina says at first person posters out of date

especially now? People emphatically rejected what was on offer. I think

people should vote their and their head and. Do you think it is feared

that the Green party have decided to stand down in certain places such as

Chester and don't feel that their back is being scratched by the

Labour Party? Well we are a national parties are we going to stand

everywhere and we were very recently in government and the station to be

in government again. I do support more proportional representation and

as Graham said we had a referendum that was overwhelmingly rejected.

The referendum we had was not on the type of updating and we wanted, we

need to have more public debate. That referendum was not justified.

One of the best things about our political system is the constituency

link. My constituents, who live in a meeting every weekend and every

evening, really value the fact that I am their representative than it is

my job to go into the community and speak to them... That's it from us.

My thanks to Lucy Powell, Tina Rothery anti-Graham Brady. Next week

-- and to Graham Brady. Next week will be

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.