:00:15. > :00:19.It's Sunday Morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.
:00:20. > :00:21.Labour attacks Conservative plans for social care and to means-test
:00:22. > :00:24.So can Jeremy Corbyn eat into the Tory lead
:00:25. > :00:30.Theresa May says her party's manifesto is all about fairness.
:00:31. > :00:34.We'll be speaking to a Conservative cabinet minister about the plans.
:00:35. > :00:37.The polls have always shown healthy leads for the Conservatives.
:00:38. > :00:41.But, now we've seen the manifestos, is Labour narrowing the gap?
:00:42. > :00:45.And coming up here: Just six weeks into the job and Robin Swann
:00:46. > :00:46.is leading the Ulster Unionists into an election battle
:00:47. > :00:58.So how will his brand of "confident unionism" play with the voters?
:00:59. > :01:01.And with me - as always - the best and the brightest political
:01:02. > :01:03.panel in the business: Sam Coates, Isabel Oakeshott
:01:04. > :01:05.and Steve Richards - they'll be tweeting throughout
:01:06. > :01:08.the programme, and you can get involved by using
:01:09. > :01:16.Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says pensioners will be up to ?330 a year
:01:17. > :01:28.worse off under plans outlined in the Conservative manifesto.
:01:29. > :01:34.The Work Pensions Secretary Damian Green has said his party will not
:01:35. > :01:38.rethink their plans to fund social care in England. Under the plans in
:01:39. > :01:44.the Conservative manifesto, nobody with assets of less than ?100,000,
:01:45. > :01:49.would have to pay for care. Labour has attacked the proposal, and John
:01:50. > :01:52.McDonnell, Labour's Shadow Chancellor, said this morning that
:01:53. > :01:56.there needs to be more cross-party consensus.
:01:57. > :01:58.That's why we supported Dilnot, but we also supported
:01:59. > :02:01.Because we've got to have something sustainable over generations,
:02:02. > :02:03.so that's why we've said to the Conservative Party,
:02:04. > :02:06.Let's go back to that cross-party approach that actually
:02:07. > :02:10.I just feel we've all been let down by what's come
:02:11. > :02:21.Sam, is Labour beginning to get their argument across? What we had
:02:22. > :02:25.last week was bluntly what felt like not very Lynton Crosby approved
:02:26. > :02:29.Conservative manifesto. What I mean by that is that it looks like there
:02:30. > :02:33.are things that will cause political difficulties for the party over this
:02:34. > :02:38.campaign. I've been talking to MPs and ministers who acknowledge that
:02:39. > :02:44.the social care plan is coming up on the doorstep. It has cut through
:02:45. > :02:47.very quickly, and it is worrying and deterring some voters. Not just
:02:48. > :02:59.pensioners, that people who are looking to inherit in the future.
:03:00. > :03:01.They are all asking how much they could lose that they wouldn't have
:03:02. > :03:04.lost before. A difficult question for the party to answer, given that
:03:05. > :03:09.they don't want to give too much away now. Was this a mistake, or a
:03:10. > :03:16.sign of the Conservatives' confidence? It has the hallmarks of
:03:17. > :03:20.something that has been cobbled together in a very unnaturally short
:03:21. > :03:25.time frame for putting a manifesto together. We have had mixed messages
:03:26. > :03:29.from the Tory MPs who have been out on the airwaves this morning as to
:03:30. > :03:34.whether they will consult on it whether it is just a starting point.
:03:35. > :03:40.That said, there is still three weeks to go, and most of the Tory
:03:41. > :03:44.party this morning feel this is a little light turbulence rather than
:03:45. > :03:48.anything that leaves the destination of victory in doubt. It it flips the
:03:49. > :03:52.normal politics. The Tories are going to make people who have a
:03:53. > :03:59.reasonable amount of assets pay for their social care. What is wrong
:04:00. > :04:02.with that? First, total credit for them for not pretending that all
:04:03. > :04:06.this can be done by magic, which is what normally happens in an
:04:07. > :04:11.election. The party will say, we will review this for the 95th time
:04:12. > :04:16.in the following Parliament, so they have no mandate to do anything and
:04:17. > :04:20.so do not do anything. It is courageous to do it. It is
:04:21. > :04:25.electorally risky, for the reasons that you suggest, that they pass the
:04:26. > :04:32.target their own natural supporter. And there is a sense that this is
:04:33. > :04:37.rushed through, in the frenzy to get it done in time. I think the ending
:04:38. > :04:42.of the pooling of risk and putting the entire burden on in inverted
:04:43. > :04:51.commas the victim, because you cannot insure Fritz, is against the
:04:52. > :04:54.spirit of a lot of the rest of the manifesto, and will give them huge
:04:55. > :05:03.problems if they try to implement it in the next Parliament. Let's have a
:05:04. > :05:08.look at the polls. Nearly five weeks ago, on Tuesday the 18th of April,
:05:09. > :05:13.Theresa May called the election. At that point, this was the median
:05:14. > :05:18.average of the recent polls. The Conservatives had an 18 point lead
:05:19. > :05:27.over Labour on 25%. Ukip and the Liberal Democrats were both on 18%.
:05:28. > :05:32.A draft of Labour's manifesto was leaked to the press. In the
:05:33. > :05:35.intervening weeks, support for the Conservatives and Labour had
:05:36. > :05:40.increased, that it had decreased for the Lib Dems and Ukip. Last Tuesday
:05:41. > :05:46.came the launch of the official Labour manifesto. By that time,
:05:47. > :05:52.Labour support had gone up by another 2%. The Lib Dems and Ukip
:05:53. > :05:56.had slipped back slightly. Later in the week came the manifestos from
:05:57. > :06:01.the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. This morning, for more polls. This
:06:02. > :06:09.is how the parties currently stand on average. Labour are now on 34%,
:06:10. > :06:13.up 4% since the launch of their manifesto. The Conservatives are
:06:14. > :06:19.down two points since last Tuesday. Ukip and the Lib Dems are both
:06:20. > :06:25.unchanged on 8% and 5%. You can find this poll tracker on the BBC
:06:26. > :06:30.website, see how it was calculated, and see the results of national
:06:31. > :06:33.polls over the last two years. So Isabel, is this the Tories' wobbly
:06:34. > :06:38.weekend or the start of the narrowing? This is still an
:06:39. > :06:45.extremely healthy lead for the Tories. At the start of this
:06:46. > :06:50.campaign, most commentators expected to things to happen. First, the Lib
:06:51. > :06:56.Dems would have a significant surge. That hasn't happened. Second, Labour
:06:57. > :07:00.would crash and plummet. Instead they are in the health of the low
:07:01. > :07:07.30s. I wonder if that tells you something about the tribal nature of
:07:08. > :07:11.the Labour vote, and the continuing problems with the Tory brand. I
:07:12. > :07:17.would say that a lot of Tory MPs wouldn't be too unhappy if Labour's
:07:18. > :07:23.result isn't quite as bad as has been anticipated. They don't want
:07:24. > :07:30.Corbyn to go anywhere. If the latest polls were to be the result on June
:07:31. > :07:35.the 8th, Mr Corbyn may not be in a rush to go anywhere. I still think
:07:36. > :07:40.it depends on the number of seats. If there is a landslide win, I
:07:41. > :07:45.think, one way or another, he will not stay. If it is much narrower, he
:07:46. > :07:51.has grounds for arguing he has done better than anticipated. The polls
:07:52. > :07:56.are very interesting. People compare this with 83. In 83, the Tory lead
:07:57. > :08:09.widened consistently throughout the campaign. There was the SDP -
:08:10. > :08:11.Liberal Alliance doing well in the polls. Here, the Lib Dems don't seem
:08:12. > :08:14.to be doing that. So the parallels with 83 don't really stack up. But
:08:15. > :08:17.let's see what happens. Still early days for the a lot of people are
:08:18. > :08:22.saying this is the result of the social care policy. We don't really
:08:23. > :08:25.know that. How do you beat them? In the last week or so, there's been
:08:26. > :08:31.the decision by some to hold their nose and vote Labour, who haven't
:08:32. > :08:35.done so before. Probably the biggest thing in this election is how the
:08:36. > :08:42.Right has reunited behind Theresa May. That figure for Ukip is
:08:43. > :08:47.incredibly small. She has brought those Ukip voters behind her, and
:08:48. > :08:52.that could be the decisive factor in many seats, rather than the Labour
:08:53. > :08:57.share of the boat picking up a bit or down a bit, depending on how
:08:58. > :09:00.turbulent the Tory manifesto makes it. Thank you for that.
:09:01. > :09:03.We've finally got our hands on the manifestos of the two main
:09:04. > :09:05.parties and, for once, voters can hardly complain that
:09:06. > :09:09.So, just how big is the choice on offer to the public?
:09:10. > :09:11.Since the Liberal Democrats and SNP have ruled out
:09:12. > :09:13.coalitions after June 8th, Adam Fleming compares the Labour
:09:14. > :09:16.Welcome to the BBC's election centre.
:09:17. > :09:20.Four minutes from now, when Big Ben strikes 10.00,
:09:21. > :09:24.we can legally reveal the contents of this, our exit poll.
:09:25. > :09:26.18 days to go, and the BBC's election night studio
:09:27. > :09:36.This is where David Dimbleby will sit, although there is no chair yet.
:09:37. > :09:39.The parties' policies are now the finished product.
:09:40. > :09:42.In Bradford, Jeremy Corbyn vowed a bigger state,
:09:43. > :09:45.the end of austerity, no more tuition fees.
:09:46. > :09:53.The Tory campaign, by contrast, is built on one word - fear.
:09:54. > :10:01.Down the road in Halifax, Theresa May kept a promise to get
:10:02. > :10:04.immigration down to the tens of thousands, and talked
:10:05. > :10:07.of leadership and tough choices in uncertain times.
:10:08. > :10:13.Strengthen my hand as I fight for Britain, and stand with me
:10:14. > :10:19.And, with confidence in ourselves and a unity
:10:20. > :10:27.of purpose in our country, let us go forward together.
:10:28. > :10:30.Let's look at the Labour and Conservative
:10:31. > :10:36.On tax, Labour would introduce a 50p rate for top earners.
:10:37. > :11:00.The Conservatives ditched their triple lock, giving them
:11:01. > :11:02.freedom to put up income tax and national insurance,
:11:03. > :11:04.although they want to keep the overall tax burden the same.
:11:05. > :11:06.Labour offered a major overhaul of the country's wiring,
:11:07. > :11:08.with a pledge to renationalise infrastructure, like power,
:11:09. > :11:11.The Conservatives said that would cost a fortune,
:11:12. > :11:14.but provided few details for the cost of their policies.
:11:15. > :11:16.Labour have simply become a shambles, and, as yesterday's
:11:17. > :11:18.manifesto showed, their numbers simply do not add up.
:11:19. > :11:20.What have they got planned for health and social care?
:11:21. > :11:24.The Conservatives offered more cash for the NHS,
:11:25. > :11:28.reaching an extra ?8 billion a year by the end of the parliament.
:11:29. > :11:32.Labour promised an extra ?30 billion over the course of the same period,
:11:33. > :11:38.plus free hospital parking and more pay for staff.
:11:39. > :11:45.The Conservatives would increase the value of assets you could
:11:46. > :11:48.protect from the cost of social care to ?100,000, but your home would be
:11:49. > :11:50.added to the assessment of your wealth,
:11:51. > :11:54.There was a focus on one group of voters in particular
:11:55. > :11:59.Labour would keep the triple lock, which guarantees that pensions go up
:12:00. > :12:05.The Tories would keep the increase in line
:12:06. > :12:08.with inflation or earnings, a double lock.
:12:09. > :12:11.The Conservatives would end of winter fuel payments
:12:12. > :12:14.for the richest, although we don't know exactly who that would be,
:12:15. > :12:23.This is a savage attack on vulnerable pensioners,
:12:24. > :12:27.particularly those who are just about managing.
:12:28. > :12:31.It is disgraceful, and we are calling upon the Conservative Party
:12:32. > :12:37.When it comes to leaving the European Union, Labour say
:12:38. > :12:40.they'd sweep away the government's negotiating strategy,
:12:41. > :12:43.secure a better deal and straightaway guaranteed the rights
:12:44. > :12:49.The Tories say a big majority would remove political uncertainty
:12:50. > :13:01.Jeremy Vine's due here in two and a half weeks.
:13:02. > :13:07.I'm joined now by David Gauke, who is Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
:13:08. > :13:14.Welcome back to the programme. The Tories once promised a cap on social
:13:15. > :13:22.care costs. Why have you abandoned that? We've looked at it, and there
:13:23. > :13:27.are couple of proposals with the Dilnot proposal. Much of the benefit
:13:28. > :13:31.would go to those inheriting larger estates. The second point was it was
:13:32. > :13:37.hoped that a cap would stimulate the larger insurance products that would
:13:38. > :13:42.fill the gap, but there is no sign that those products are emerging.
:13:43. > :13:47.Without a cap, you will not get one. We have come forward with a new
:13:48. > :13:51.proposal which we think is fairer, provide more money for social care,
:13:52. > :13:56.which is very important and is one of the big issues we face as a
:13:57. > :14:01.country. It is right that we face those big issues. Social care is
:14:02. > :14:09.one, getting a good Brexit deal is another. This demonstrates that
:14:10. > :14:11.Theresa May has an ambition to lead a government that addresses those
:14:12. > :14:17.big long-term issues. Looking at social care. If you have assets,
:14:18. > :14:21.including your home, of over ?100,000, you have to pay for all
:14:22. > :14:26.your social care costs. Is that fair? It is right that for the
:14:27. > :14:31.services that are provided to you, that that is paid out of your
:14:32. > :14:35.assets, subject to two really important qualifications. First, you
:14:36. > :14:42.shouldn't have your entire estate wiped out. At the moment, if you are
:14:43. > :14:48.in residential care, it can be wiped out ?223,000. If you are in
:14:49. > :14:54.domiciliary care, it can be out to ?23,000, plus you're domiciliary.
:14:55. > :14:59.Nobody should be forced to sell their house in their lifetime if
:15:00. > :15:01.they or their spouse needs long-term care. Again, we have protected that
:15:02. > :15:11.in the proposals we set out. But the state will basically take a
:15:12. > :15:16.chunk of your house when you die and they sell. In an essence it is a
:15:17. > :15:19.stealth inheritance tax on everything above ?100,000. But we
:15:20. > :15:23.have those two important protections. I am including that. It
:15:24. > :15:28.is a stealth inheritance tax. We have to face up to the fact that
:15:29. > :15:32.there are significant costs that we face as a country in terms of health
:15:33. > :15:37.and social careful. Traditionally, politicians don't address those
:15:38. > :15:42.issues, particularly during election campaigns. I think it is too Theresa
:15:43. > :15:46.May's credit that we are being straightforward with the British
:15:47. > :15:49.people and saying that we face this long-term challenge. Our manifesto
:15:50. > :15:53.was about the big challenges that we face, one of which was
:15:54. > :15:57.intergenerational fairness and one of which was delivering a strong
:15:58. > :16:03.economy and making sure that we can do that. But in the end, someone is
:16:04. > :16:07.going to have to pay for this. It is going to have to be a balance
:16:08. > :16:10.between the general taxpayer and those receiving the services. We
:16:11. > :16:13.think we have struck the right balance with this proposal. But it
:16:14. > :16:18.is entirely on the individual. People watching this programme, if
:16:19. > :16:25.they have a fair amount of assets, not massive, including the home,
:16:26. > :16:29.they will need to pay for everything themselves until their assets are
:16:30. > :16:34.reduced to ?100,000. It is not a balance, you're putting everything
:16:35. > :16:40.on the original two individual. At the moment, for those in residential
:16:41. > :16:44.care, they have to pay everything until 20 3000. -- everything on the
:16:45. > :16:48.individual. But now they will face more. Those in individual care are
:16:49. > :16:52.seeing their protection going up by four times as much, so that is
:16:53. > :16:56.eliminating unfairness. Why should those in residential care be in a
:16:57. > :17:01.worse position than those receiving domiciliary care? But as I say, that
:17:02. > :17:05.money has to come from somewhere and we are sitting at a proper plan for
:17:06. > :17:08.it. While also made the point that we are more likely to be able to
:17:09. > :17:12.have a properly functioning social care market if we have a strong
:17:13. > :17:16.economy, and to have a strong economy we need to deliver a good
:17:17. > :17:20.deal on Brexit and I think Theresa May is capable of doing that. You
:17:21. > :17:25.have said that before. But if you have a heart attack in old age, the
:17:26. > :17:29.NHS will take care of you. If you have dementia, you now have to pay
:17:30. > :17:33.for the care of yourself. Is that they are? It is already the case
:17:34. > :17:37.that if you have long-term care costs come up as I say, if you are
:17:38. > :17:43.in residential care you pay for all of it until the last ?23,000, but if
:17:44. > :17:47.you are in domiciliary care, excluding your housing assets, but
:17:48. > :17:53.all of your other assets get used up until you are down to ?23,000 a
:17:54. > :18:00.year. And I think it is right at this point that a party that aspires
:18:01. > :18:03.to run this country for the long-term, to address the long-term
:18:04. > :18:08.challenges we have is a country, for us to be clear that we need to
:18:09. > :18:14.deliver this. Because if it is not paid for it this way, if it goes and
:18:15. > :18:18.falls on the general taxpayer, the people who feel hard pressed by the
:18:19. > :18:22.amount of income tax and VAT they pay, frankly we have to say to them,
:18:23. > :18:26.those taxes will go up if we do not address it. But they might go up
:18:27. > :18:32.anyway. The average house price in your part of the country is just shy
:18:33. > :18:36.of ?430,000, so if you told your own constituents that they might have to
:18:37. > :18:42.spend ?300,000 of their assets on social care before the state steps
:18:43. > :18:47.in to help...? As I said earlier, nobody will be forced to pay during
:18:48. > :18:52.their lifetime. Nobody will be forced to sell their houses. We are
:18:53. > :18:57.providing that protection because of the third premium. Which makes it a
:18:58. > :19:02.kind of death tax, doesn't it? Which is what you use to rail against.
:19:03. > :19:07.What it is people paying for the services they have paid out of their
:19:08. > :19:10.assets. But with that very important protection that nobody is going to
:19:11. > :19:16.be wiped out in the way that has happened up until now, down to the
:19:17. > :19:20.last three years. But when Labour propose this, George Osborne called
:19:21. > :19:24.it a death tax and you are now proposing a stealth death tax
:19:25. > :19:30.inheritance tax. Labour's proposals were very different. It is the same
:19:31. > :19:37.effect. Labour's were hitting everyone with an inheritance tax. We
:19:38. > :19:39.are saying that there are -- that there is a state contribution but
:19:40. > :19:46.the public receiving the services will have to pay for it out of
:19:47. > :19:49.assets, which have grown substantially. And which they might
:19:50. > :19:54.now lose to social care. But I would say that people in Hertfordshire pay
:19:55. > :19:59.a lot in income tracks, national insurance and VAT, and this is my
:20:00. > :20:03.bet is going to have to come from somewhere. Well, they are now going
:20:04. > :20:08.to pay a lot of tax and pay for social care. Turning to immigration,
:20:09. > :20:12.you promised to get net migration down to 100,020 ten. You failed. You
:20:13. > :20:17.promised again in 2015 and you are feeling again. Why should voters
:20:18. > :20:21.trust you a third time? It is very clear that only the Conservative
:20:22. > :20:26.Party has an ambition to control immigration and to bring it down. An
:20:27. > :20:30.ambition you have failed to deliver. There are, of course, factors that
:20:31. > :20:34.come into play. For example a couple of years ago we were going through a
:20:35. > :20:37.period when the UK was creating huge numbers of jobs but none of our
:20:38. > :20:41.European neighbours were doing anything like it. Not surprisingly,
:20:42. > :20:48.that feeds through into the immigration numbers that we see. But
:20:49. > :20:53.it is right that we have that ambition because I do not believe it
:20:54. > :20:57.is sustainable to have hundreds of thousands net migration, you're
:20:58. > :21:01.after year after year, and only Theresa May of the Conservative
:21:02. > :21:05.Party is willing to address that. It has gone from being a target to an
:21:06. > :21:09.ambition, and I am pretty sure in a couple of years it will become an
:21:10. > :21:14.untimed aspiration. Is net migration now higher or lower than when you
:21:15. > :21:20.came to power in 2010? I think it is higher at the moment. Let's look at
:21:21. > :21:24.the figures. And there they are. You are right, it is higher, so after
:21:25. > :21:32.six years in power, promising to get it down to 100,000, it is higher. So
:21:33. > :21:35.if that is an ambition and you have not succeeded. We have to accept
:21:36. > :21:40.that there are a number of factors. It continues to be the case that the
:21:41. > :21:44.UK economy is growing and creating a lot of jobs, which is undoubtedly
:21:45. > :21:48.drawing people. But you made the promise on the basis that would not
:21:49. > :21:50.happen? We are certainly outperforming other countries in a
:21:51. > :21:56.way that we could not have predicted in 2010. That is one of the factors.
:21:57. > :21:59.But if you look at a lot of the steps that we have taken over the
:22:00. > :22:05.course of the last seven years, dealing with bogus students, for
:22:06. > :22:08.example, tightening up a lot of the rules. You can say all that but it
:22:09. > :22:12.has made no difference to the headline figure. Clearly it would
:22:13. > :22:17.have gone up by much more and we not taken the steps. But as I say, we
:22:18. > :22:22.cannot for ever, it seems to me, have net migration numbers in the
:22:23. > :22:27.hundreds of thousands. If we get that good Brexit deal, one of the
:22:28. > :22:32.things we can do is tighten up in terms of access here. You say that
:22:33. > :22:36.but you have always had control of non-EU migration. You cannot blame
:22:37. > :22:39.the EU for that. You control immigration from outside the EU.
:22:40. > :22:46.Have you ever managed to get even that below 100,000? Well, no doubt
:22:47. > :22:51.you will present the numbers now. You haven't. You have got down a bit
:22:52. > :22:56.from 2010, I will give you that, but even non-EU migration is still a lot
:22:57. > :23:00.more than 100000 and that is the thing you control. It is 164,000 on
:23:01. > :23:04.the latest figures. There is no point in saying to the voters that
:23:05. > :23:07.when we get control of the EU migration you will get it down when
:23:08. > :23:13.the bit you have control over, you have failed to get that down into
:23:14. > :23:17.the tens of thousands. The general trend has gone up. Non-EU migration
:23:18. > :23:23.we have brought down over the last few years. Not by much, not by
:23:24. > :23:28.anywhere near your 100,000 target. But we clearly have more tools
:23:29. > :23:33.available to us, following Brexit. At this rate it will be around 2030
:23:34. > :23:36.before you get non-EU migration down to 100,000. We clearly have more
:23:37. > :23:40.tools available to us and I return to the point I made. In the last six
:23:41. > :23:44.or seven years, particularly the last four or five, we have seen the
:23:45. > :23:48.UK jobs market growing substantially. It is extraordinary
:23:49. > :23:51.how many more jobs we have. So you'll only promised the migration
:23:52. > :23:55.target because you did not think you were going to run the economy well?
:23:56. > :23:59.That is what you are telling me. I don't think anyone expected us to
:24:00. > :24:03.create quite a number of jobs that we have done over the last six or
:24:04. > :24:06.seven years. At the time when other European countries have not been.
:24:07. > :24:12.George Osborne says your target is economically illiterate. I disagree
:24:13. > :24:19.with George on that. He is my old boss but I disagree with him on that
:24:20. > :24:22.point. And the reason I say that is looking at the economics and the
:24:23. > :24:27.wider social impact, I don't think it is sustainable for us to have
:24:28. > :24:31.hundreds of thousands, year after year after year. Let me ask you one
:24:32. > :24:35.other thing because you are the chief secretary. Your promising that
:24:36. > :24:40.spending on health will be ?8 billion higher in five use time than
:24:41. > :24:42.it is now. How do you pay for that? From a strong economy, two years ago
:24:43. > :24:48.we had a similar conversation because at that point we said that
:24:49. > :24:53.we would increase spending by ?8 billion. And we are more than on
:24:54. > :24:57.track to deliver it, because it is a priority area for us. Where will the
:24:58. > :25:01.money come from? It will be a priority area for us. We will find
:25:02. > :25:07.the money. So you have not been able to show us a revenue line where this
:25:08. > :25:11.?8 billion will come from. We have a record of making promises to spend
:25:12. > :25:15.more on the NHS and delivering. One thing I would say is that the only
:25:16. > :25:21.way you can spend more money on the NHS is if you have a strong economy,
:25:22. > :25:24.and the biggest risk... But that is true of anything. I am trying to
:25:25. > :25:29.find out where the ?8 billion come from, where will it come from? Know
:25:30. > :25:32.you were saying that perhaps you might increase taxes, ticking off
:25:33. > :25:39.the lock, so people are right to be suspicious. But you will not tell us
:25:40. > :25:43.where the ?8 billion will come from. Andrew, a strong economy is key to
:25:44. > :25:47.delivering more NHS money. That does not tell us where the money is
:25:48. > :25:51.coming from. The biggest risk to a strong economy would be a bad
:25:52. > :25:55.Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn would deliver. And we have a record of
:25:56. > :25:59.putting more money into the NHS. I think that past performance we can
:26:00. > :26:01.take forward. Thank you for joining us.
:26:02. > :26:03.So, the Conservatives have been taking a bit of flak
:26:04. > :26:07.But Conservative big guns have been out and about this morning taking
:26:08. > :26:11.Here's Boris Johnson on ITV's Peston programme earlier today:
:26:12. > :26:15.What we're trying to do is to address what I think
:26:16. > :26:18.everybody, all serious demographers acknowledge will be the massive
:26:19. > :26:22.problem of the cost of social care long-term.
:26:23. > :26:25.This is a responsible, grown-up, conservative approach,
:26:26. > :26:28.trying to deal with a long-term problem in a way that is equitable,
:26:29. > :26:31.allows people to pass on a very substantial sum,
:26:32. > :26:33.still, to their kids, and takes away the fear
:26:34. > :26:39.Joining me now from Liverpool is Labour's Shadow Chief Secretary
:26:40. > :26:51.Petered out, welcome to the programme. Let's start with social
:26:52. > :26:55.care. The Tories are saying that if you have ?100,000 or more in assets,
:26:56. > :27:00.you should pay for your own social care. What is wrong with that? Well,
:27:01. > :27:05.I think the issue at the end of the day is the question of fairness. Is
:27:06. > :27:09.it fair? And what we're trying to do is to get to a situation where we
:27:10. > :27:15.have, for example, the Dilnot report, which identified that you
:27:16. > :27:18.actually have cap on your spending on social care. We are trying to get
:27:19. > :27:24.to a position where it is a reasonable and fair approach to
:27:25. > :27:28.expenditure. But you will know that a lot of people, particularly in the
:27:29. > :27:33.south of country, London and the south-east, and the adjacent areas
:27:34. > :27:36.around it, they have benefited from huge house price inflation. They
:27:37. > :27:41.have seen their homes go up in value, if and when they sell, they
:27:42. > :27:47.are not taxed on that increase. Why should these people not pay for
:27:48. > :27:51.their own social care if they have the assets to do so? They will be
:27:52. > :27:55.paying for some of their social care but you cannot take social care and
:27:56. > :27:58.health care separately. It has to be an integrated approach. So for
:27:59. > :28:02.example if you do have dementia, you're more likely to be in an
:28:03. > :28:07.elderly person's home for longer and you most probably have been in care
:28:08. > :28:11.for a longer period of time. On the other hand, you might have, if you
:28:12. > :28:14.have had a stroke, there may be continuing care needs paid for by
:28:15. > :28:18.the NHS. So at the end of the date it is trying to get a reasonable
:28:19. > :28:26.balance and just to pluck a figure of ?100,000 out of thin air is not
:28:27. > :28:32.sensible. You will have heard me say about David Gold that the house
:28:33. > :28:36.prices in his area, about 450,000 or so, not quite that, and that people
:28:37. > :28:41.may have to spend quite a lot of that on social care to get down to
:28:42. > :28:45.?100,000. But in your area, the average house price is only
:28:46. > :28:51.?149,000, so your people would not have to pay anything like as much
:28:52. > :28:57.before they hit the ?100,000 minimum. I hesitate to say that but
:28:58. > :29:00.is that not almost a socialist approach to social care that if you
:29:01. > :29:05.are in the affluent Home Counties with a big asset, you pay more, and
:29:06. > :29:08.if you are in an area that is not so affluent and your house is not worth
:29:09. > :29:13.very much, you pay a lot less. What is wrong with that principle? I
:29:14. > :29:17.think the problem I am trying to get to is this issue about equity across
:29:18. > :29:23.the piece. At the end of the day, what we want is a system whereby it
:29:24. > :29:27.is capped at a particular level, and the Dilnot report, after much
:29:28. > :29:31.examination, said we should have a cap on care costs at ?72,000. The
:29:32. > :29:35.Conservatives decided to ditch that and come up with another policy
:29:36. > :29:39.which by all accounts seems to be even more Draconian. At the end of
:29:40. > :29:48.the day it is trying to get social care and an NHS care in a much more
:29:49. > :29:51.fluid way. We had offered the Conservatives to have a bipartisan
:29:52. > :29:56.approach to this. David just said that this is a long term. You do not
:29:57. > :30:01.pick a figure out of thin air and use that as a long-term strategy.
:30:02. > :30:07.The Conservatives are now saying they will increase health spending
:30:08. > :30:12.over the next five years in real terms. You will increase health
:30:13. > :30:17.spending. In what way is your approach to health spending better
:30:18. > :30:24.than the Tories' now? We are contributing an extra 7.2 billion to
:30:25. > :30:28.the NHS and social care over the next few years. But you just don't
:30:29. > :30:33.put money into the NHS or social care. It has to be an integrated
:30:34. > :30:38.approach to social and health care. What we've got is just more of the
:30:39. > :30:43.same. What we don't want to do is just say, we ring-fenced an out for
:30:44. > :30:51.here or there. What you have to do is try to get that... Let me ask you
:30:52. > :30:56.again. In terms of the amount of resource that is going to be devoted
:30:57. > :31:02.in the next five years, and resource does matter for the NHS, in what way
:31:03. > :31:06.are your plans different now from the Conservative plans? The key is
:31:07. > :31:11.how you use that resource. By just putting money in, you've got to say,
:31:12. > :31:18.if we are going to put that money on, how do we use it? As somebody
:31:19. > :31:22.who has worked in social care for 40 years, you have to have a different
:31:23. > :31:27.approach to how you use that money. The money we are putting in, 7.7,
:31:28. > :31:32.may be similar in cash terms to what the Tories claim they are putting
:31:33. > :31:46.in, but it's not how much you put in per se, it is how you use it. You
:31:47. > :31:48.are going to get rid of car parking charges in hospital, and you are
:31:49. > :31:51.going to increase pay by taking the cap on pay off. So it doesn't
:31:52. > :31:53.necessarily follow that the money, under your way of doing it, will
:31:54. > :31:57.follow the front line. What you need in the NHS is a system that is
:31:58. > :32:05.capable of dealing with the patience you have. What we have now is on at
:32:06. > :32:14.five Asian of the NHS. Staff leaving, not being paid properly. So
:32:15. > :32:18.pay and the NHS go hand in hand. Let's move onto another area of
:32:19. > :32:24.policy where there is some confusion. Who speaks for the Labour
:32:25. > :32:30.Party on nuclear weapons? Is it Emily Thornbury, or Nia Griffith,
:32:31. > :32:35.defence spokesperson? The Labour manifesto. It is clear. We are
:32:36. > :32:46.committed to the nuclear deterrent, and that is the definitive... Is it?
:32:47. > :32:49.Emily Thornbury said that Trident could be scrapped in the defence
:32:50. > :32:55.review you would have immediately after taking power. On LBC on Friday
:32:56. > :33:01.night. She didn't, actually. I listened to that. What she actually
:33:02. > :33:06.said is, as part of a Labour government coming in, a new
:33:07. > :33:10.government, there is always a defence review. But not the concept
:33:11. > :33:17.of Trident in its substance. She said there would be a review in
:33:18. > :33:21.terms of, and this is in our manifesto. When you reduce
:33:22. > :33:27.something, you review how it is operated. The review could scrap
:33:28. > :33:32.Trident. It won't scrap Trident. The review is in the context of how you
:33:33. > :33:38.protect it from cyber attacks. This will issue was seized upon that she
:33:39. > :33:43.was saying that we would have another review of Trident or Labour
:33:44. > :33:50.would ditch it. That is nonsense. You will have seen some reports that
:33:51. > :33:54.MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn in the early 90s because of his
:33:55. > :34:03.links to Irish republicanism. This has caused some people, his links to
:34:04. > :34:09.the IRA and Sinn Fein, it has caused some concern. Could you just listen
:34:10. > :34:16.to this clip and react. Do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn
:34:17. > :34:21.all bombing. But do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn what was done
:34:22. > :34:25.with the British Army as well as both sides as well. What happened in
:34:26. > :34:32.Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well. Do you distinguish between
:34:33. > :34:38.state forces, what the British Army did and the IRA? Well, in a sense,
:34:39. > :34:44.the treatment of IRA prisoners which made them into virtual political
:34:45. > :34:48.prisoners suggested that the British government and the state saw some
:34:49. > :34:55.kind of almost equivalent in it. My point is that the whole violence if
:34:56. > :35:02.you was terrible, was appalling, and came out of a process that had been
:35:03. > :35:07.allowed to fester in Northern Ireland for a very long time. That
:35:08. > :35:11.was from about two years ago. Can you explain why the Leader of the
:35:12. > :35:15.Labour Party, Her Majesty 's opposition, the man who would be our
:35:16. > :35:22.next Prime Minister, finds it so hard to condemn IRA arming? I think
:35:23. > :35:25.it has to be within the context that Jeremy Corbyn for many years trying
:35:26. > :35:34.to move the peace protest... Process along. So why wouldn't you condemn
:35:35. > :35:42.IRA bombing? Again, that was an issue, a traumatic event in Irish -
:35:43. > :35:47.British relations that went on for 30 years. It is a complicated
:35:48. > :35:52.matter. Bombing is not that complicated. If you are a man of
:35:53. > :35:56.peace, surely you would condemn the bomb and the bullet? Let me say
:35:57. > :36:03.this, I condemn the bomb and the bullet. Why can't your leader? You
:36:04. > :36:08.would have to ask Jeremy Corbyn, but that is in the context of what he
:36:09. > :36:09.was trying to do over a 25 year period to move the priest process
:36:10. > :36:12.along. Thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35,
:36:13. > :36:14.you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:36:15. > :36:24.in Scotland and Wales. Hello and welcome to
:36:25. > :36:26.Sunday Politics in Northern Ireland. The election campaign in Britain
:36:27. > :36:30.heated up this week with the launch of the Labour and Conservative
:36:31. > :36:32.manifestos, but we're still waiting to hear what our local
:36:33. > :36:36.parties have up their sleeves. Heading into his first election
:36:37. > :36:40.as leader of the Ulster Unionists, Robin Swann will be outlining
:36:41. > :36:43.his plans to retain the party's And sharing their thoughts I'm
:36:44. > :36:49.joined by the Irish News journalist Allison Morris and
:36:50. > :36:57.the columnist Alex Kane. With two and half weeks to go before
:36:58. > :37:00.polling in the Westminster election, one issue that has been
:37:01. > :37:03.at the front of the campaign Yesterday, protesters
:37:04. > :37:06.were on the streets of Belfast Thousands of people marched
:37:07. > :37:12.from the Falls Road Politicians too joined the protest
:37:13. > :37:18.including the SDLP, Sinn Fein, At City Hall the crowd heard
:37:19. > :37:35.speeches in English and Irish No longer will we be in the back
:37:36. > :37:38.rooms. We will be front and centre. We will take over our towns and
:37:39. > :37:42.cities. The Irish language are at the very centre of who we are as
:37:43. > :37:50.people now. We're not going anywhere.
:37:51. > :38:02.Body singles going on yesterday? You can see from the amount of people on
:38:03. > :38:10.the streets, that some people have tried to make it a Rob Dallek
:38:11. > :38:19.radical Republican agenda. It is actually people from all walks of
:38:20. > :38:24.life. It has allies from other communities towards this issue. The
:38:25. > :38:27.issue with Irish language is the priests the Mac peace process that
:38:28. > :38:42.Mac peace and a figure reason it has become
:38:43. > :38:48.so... Are missing the nationalist vote being galvanised once again?
:38:49. > :38:55.They certainly are going to try and maximise it. In the wider issue, we
:38:56. > :39:00.are asking if there will be an Irish language act. I think there is going
:39:01. > :39:04.to be. I think it is inevitable that there will not be a return to the
:39:05. > :39:10.status quo. This has to be at the heart of their agenda. Without this
:39:11. > :39:18.act, there is going to be no assembly, no executive. There was a
:39:19. > :39:22.softening from Michelle O'Neill last week when she talked about Ulster
:39:23. > :39:28.Scots and other cultural aspect being brought into the same package.
:39:29. > :39:36.Think we are looking at the deal. I think there will be a package on the
:39:37. > :39:43.Irish act very soon. Is that how you see it? Yes. I think it has to have
:39:44. > :39:46.a wider cultural context. Once you widen it out, I think they will
:39:47. > :39:50.accept that they know it has been put down as a red line and I think
:39:51. > :39:55.the amount of people that has taken to the streets says it is not just
:39:56. > :39:59.something on a whim, it is an important aspect of the talks.
:40:00. > :40:01.Thank you, both, we'll hear more from you later.
:40:02. > :40:05.Just six weeks into the job and Robin Swann is facing his first
:40:06. > :40:07.electoral challenge as leader of the Ulster Unionist Party.
:40:08. > :40:10.His main challenge is to retain the two Westminster seats the party
:40:11. > :40:13.has held since 2015, but he also has to try to reverse
:40:14. > :40:17.a long-term downward trend in the party's vote.
:40:18. > :40:24.How confident are you of keeping your seats in South Antrim
:40:25. > :40:29.I am pretty confident. We are under no illusion that both seats are
:40:30. > :40:38.going to be a fight and a struggle for us, but we're up for that fight.
:40:39. > :40:52.We are under pressure from thin Fein because they are galvanised.
:40:53. > :41:00.Southampton, Danny Kennedy is the best candidate. You accept that they
:41:01. > :41:07.are both in pretty tight fights and that you could lose some of those
:41:08. > :41:17.seats that is a real possibility. Yes. To MPs are putting in lots of
:41:18. > :41:26.work and I'm confident that they will retain those seats. This is a
:41:27. > :41:29.first past the post election, so it is about personalities and it is to
:41:30. > :41:34.very strong candidates. Confident, pragmatic
:41:35. > :41:35.unionism is your mantra, yet you're running fourteen
:41:36. > :41:37.candidates in this election, the smallest number
:41:38. > :41:49.of the five main parties. The party itself has made it very
:41:50. > :41:57.clear that I wanted the two be a champion of the union. And how it
:41:58. > :42:02.fits in in a wider UK context. It broadens out over Brexit, it
:42:03. > :42:06.broadens the strength of the union both in Scotland and Wales and the
:42:07. > :42:16.rest of the UK. That is where I see the Ulster Unionist Party fitting.
:42:17. > :42:20.Engaging at that level, coming out of Brexit negotiations, we are going
:42:21. > :42:24.to be on a global stage. An economic stage, a social stage and the rest
:42:25. > :42:28.of the global sphere. I see Northern Ireland is being able to do that. We
:42:29. > :42:30.withdrew... You withdrew from several
:42:31. > :42:31.constituencies before you'd even tried to secure a pact with the DUP
:42:32. > :42:35.- and some people saw that as a sign What was your strategy -
:42:36. > :42:43.did you have a strategy? Of course we had a strategy. One of
:42:44. > :42:51.the things that we looked at, going back to the previous answer,
:42:52. > :42:54.Northern Ireland need voices in Westminster not just for Brexit but
:42:55. > :42:59.for the period after that. Because of Northern Ireland art in there, we
:43:00. > :43:07.are in a far weakened position. An example of that is that we have
:43:08. > :43:13.three MEPs in Europe. The middle of Brussels, arguing as a conglomerate
:43:14. > :43:18.for Northern Ireland. Those three voices came together and represented
:43:19. > :43:26.Northern Ireland, irrespective of party politics. They could stomach
:43:27. > :43:33.got good deals in Europe. Now we need people in Westminster. Your
:43:34. > :43:37.party is a shadow of its former self. We look at the nub of seats
:43:38. > :43:40.you had 20 years ago and look at where you are now, scrabbling around
:43:41. > :43:46.to hang onto one or two seats, when you look at how your representatives
:43:47. > :43:54.in The Assembly has fallen? There is no scrambling. We are in a tight
:43:55. > :44:03.fight for Northern Ireland, as well. The just rumour that in 1997, you
:44:04. > :44:16.have 32.7% of the votes. 60% of the vote in 2010. -- 16. You lost seats.
:44:17. > :44:22.We lost seats because of the drop from six seats to five seats. You
:44:23. > :44:27.can't claim it was anything other than a bad result. We would only
:44:28. > :44:35.party that increased our percentage share of the vote. It may have only
:44:36. > :44:41.been... Is what I want to do under my leadership. I can expand that
:44:42. > :44:46.said that unionism is no longer seen as a derogatory insult. That
:44:47. > :44:51.unionism is actually something that a lot of people can buy into because
:44:52. > :44:56.of the strength of what it means on a UK basis. Following Brexit, what
:44:57. > :45:01.it means to be part of the UK on a worldwide basis, as well. On the
:45:02. > :45:04.global stage. What is your relationship with Arlene Foster? You
:45:05. > :45:09.called her a bit arrogant when she wrote in the Belfast Telegraph that
:45:10. > :45:14.she wouldn't be standing, but wanted a clear run in south Belfast. A bit
:45:15. > :45:18.arrogant, doesn't that suggest that she sees herself as the person who
:45:19. > :45:23.is leading and speaking for unionism and make you are a bit part player?
:45:24. > :45:29.I didn't know that Arlene actually said that, but I will talk to her
:45:30. > :45:39.about it. I am reading between the lines. It's just your context in
:45:40. > :45:50.your spin on it, Mark. We have just announced that we were going to run.
:45:51. > :46:05.And the DUP was written about by the Belfast Telegraph as being given
:46:06. > :46:11.every run. -- a free run. As I said earlier, 103,000 votes. Many
:46:12. > :46:21.recognise the value of the Ulster Unionist party. 225,000 opted for
:46:22. > :46:29.the DUP. That is not worth getting excited about 100 and 3000. There is
:46:30. > :46:35.no doubt about which is the main Unionist party. That does not mean
:46:36. > :46:41.when going to go away, either. What it does do is it nails the nonsense
:46:42. > :46:45.that Mike Nesbitt talked about when he said he wanted the Ulster
:46:46. > :46:57.Unionist Party to be the main party of unionism. We're still fighting.
:46:58. > :47:03.Ripley for a credible candidates for this election. We have got a very
:47:04. > :47:10.strong team and we have let to see them being functional and working
:47:11. > :47:13.for the people of Northern Ireland. Because of the inability of The
:47:14. > :47:21.Assembly to come about. At this point of time, we are getting in the
:47:22. > :47:30.doors. We need to make sure there is an assembly and that there is a
:47:31. > :47:36.change of the mindset that we are seeing of people on the steps. Now
:47:37. > :47:39.people want to see The Assembly work. Because we are seeing the
:47:40. > :47:47.denigration of the services in our health services. Also education.
:47:48. > :47:53.With respect, they may or may not want to see the semi-working, this
:47:54. > :47:57.is a election to Westminster. You have two seats there. If you hold
:47:58. > :48:00.onto them, you will have very little influence on a Westminster dominated
:48:01. > :48:03.by a Conservative Party that does very well and all the polls
:48:04. > :48:08.suggesting that that is going to be case. Whether we have a return to
:48:09. > :48:11.Stormont or not is not what that it's about. It is what we are
:48:12. > :48:16.getting on the doorsteps and that is what we have do understand the
:48:17. > :48:22.context of Northern Ireland. It all becomes amalgamated. What are people
:48:23. > :48:28.saying on the doorstep about Mike Nesbitt lying on his face in a
:48:29. > :48:38.hotel? How difficult was it about the confusion and speculation? We're
:48:39. > :48:45.not fighting this on that. If you have any specific questions you want
:48:46. > :48:52.to ask, then I will answer them. He is accounted a comic you must be
:48:53. > :49:01.embarrassed. -- he is a candidate. Mike is a strong candidate of his
:49:02. > :49:12.own right. We have got strong candidates across the country. Let's
:49:13. > :49:16.talk about Brexit. That is an important issue as far as this issue
:49:17. > :49:19.is concerned. You said we need to get the best deal for Northern
:49:20. > :49:27.Ireland. What does that look like in your view? One of the things we
:49:28. > :49:31.hear, and I think it is one of the things we have two nail down as
:49:32. > :49:47.well, no matter what party you vote for on the 8th of June, is not to
:49:48. > :49:53.engage in a second referendum. Theresa May is going to move on. The
:49:54. > :49:57.calls are fear and threat that has been put around about the hard
:49:58. > :50:06.border. The Irish Government are very clear that he didn't want a
:50:07. > :50:14.hard border. Nobody wants a hard border. Why are we putting that on
:50:15. > :50:18.the political agenda? One of the things I'm very clear about, I don't
:50:19. > :50:23.want to see a border in the Irish Sea because that is something that
:50:24. > :50:28.Northern Ireland could could not afford politically or economically
:50:29. > :50:32.across Irish Sea trade and I do not think it is something that the
:50:33. > :50:47.Republic of Ireland want, either. Arlene Foster told me that it isn't
:50:48. > :50:54.outrage that Michelle... That is between Michelle and Arlene. That is
:50:55. > :51:00.holding up the return to Stormont that you have just said is important
:51:01. > :51:05.to your voters. We do not know at this stage whether it is going to
:51:06. > :51:12.hold up. There are a number of round tables that we are having leading
:51:13. > :51:19.into this time. I think this will be the final challenge between Sinn
:51:20. > :51:28.Fein and them. It is up to them to work out how best to move forward.
:51:29. > :51:34.Do you think there should be an Irish language act? One of the
:51:35. > :51:40.things that I am not constable with was the Irish language act that Sinn
:51:41. > :51:49.Fein put forward in 2015, which would have an Irish language
:51:50. > :51:54.official. He would have the same powers as a High Court judge who
:51:55. > :52:04.would be able to penalised people for not recognising Irish language.
:52:05. > :52:07.We are cutting back the number of our civil servants, to bring in
:52:08. > :52:13.legislation that would bring in 10% recruitment of Irish language
:52:14. > :52:21.speakers. If it came down to it with the Ulster Unionist Party back and
:52:22. > :52:26.Irish language act or not? That sounds such a simple question. Not
:52:27. > :52:31.the one we have in front of us. I'm not going to sign a blank cheque on
:52:32. > :52:35.behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party before I know what is in it. If the
:52:36. > :52:39.act was not the Sinn Fein version, if the act was a wider cultural act,
:52:40. > :52:48.then you would be persuadable, would you? This is the conversation that
:52:49. > :52:56.we had with Sinn Fein about this specific issue. We tabled an act,
:52:57. > :53:00.they wouldn't wear that because it wasn't a specific Irish language
:53:01. > :53:07.act. They wanted a specific Irish language act. We were trying to look
:53:08. > :53:12.at a broader language act. I believe there are solutions. Sinn Fein want
:53:13. > :53:15.a specific Irish language act. Finally, Mike Nesbitt predicted the
:53:16. > :53:21.outcome of last year's assembly election. He put a number in a
:53:22. > :53:30.sealed envelope. I have an envelope, can I tempt you? Know. I'm not
:53:31. > :53:36.interested in playing with fire. Maybe you know more than I know.
:53:37. > :53:45.What about the challenge of holding onto those two seats? A big
:53:46. > :53:54.challenge. In fairness, I felt that in 2015, there were more likely to
:53:55. > :54:03.lose one and when the other. I think it will be the other time round this
:54:04. > :54:17.-- other way round. I still think Danny Kennedy will hold on. In term
:54:18. > :54:25.of the biggest challenge, the Ulster Unionist Party exactly where the DUP
:54:26. > :54:31.were in 1991 or 9092. It is about working out how you reinvent
:54:32. > :54:35.themselves. A road that has not already been swallowed up by the
:54:36. > :54:41.DUP. Saying this is how we can make a difference since it has become DUP
:54:42. > :54:47.and Sinn Fein that has turned it into a permanent contest. Is that
:54:48. > :54:53.doable, Alison? Is the situation possible to be turned around? I
:54:54. > :55:00.don't think so, at this point. I do think that Robin was right when he
:55:01. > :55:12.said that elections can be more about personalities. There has been
:55:13. > :55:21.a lot of outreach for softer nationalist who maybe would be
:55:22. > :55:24.looking at Sinn Fein. The charge that was made against the Ulster
:55:25. > :55:28.Unionist Party against Mike Nesbitt was that there was too much mixed
:55:29. > :55:35.messaging. How does Robin Swan deal with that and sell one single
:55:36. > :55:41.message? I think that was a confident performance by Robin there
:55:42. > :55:51.today. It was mixed messages. They quite happily wandered into the
:55:52. > :55:56.Unionist forum. I have been in the Ulster Unionist Party. They need to
:55:57. > :56:00.find one key thing that the Ulster Unionists can say. Interesting. They
:56:01. > :56:01.give very much indeed. That pause and have a look back at the week
:56:02. > :56:13.gone past with Na. A relaxed end of interview chat
:56:14. > :56:18.created headlines. Arlene Foster didn't expect them. My advice to her
:56:19. > :56:23.as any politician come as any client would be think before you speak. The
:56:24. > :56:27.DUP leader was on more familiar territory by the end of the week.
:56:28. > :56:33.How dare Sinn Fein tell the Unionist people who their leader should be.
:56:34. > :56:40.It is an outrage. Was the Sinn Fein leader RH bye blonde comment? She
:56:41. > :56:47.was wrong. We have a responsibility to set the tone and be very
:56:48. > :56:50.responsible of our language. He is stepping down, but is he being
:56:51. > :56:58.treated fairly? He had to go and do his job. I have enough to prosecute.
:56:59. > :57:07.And it was goodbye after the leader said he was leaving office. Simon
:57:08. > :57:15.Kofi and Liam are vying for his job. Let's have a final word
:57:16. > :57:34.with Allison and Alex. You think the criticism of their --
:57:35. > :57:42.is fair about calling her blonde? Yes. Politically I think she thought
:57:43. > :57:48.it was going to be a nice soft interview when she could show her
:57:49. > :57:53.fluffy side backfired. There is no such thing as a soft interview. That
:57:54. > :58:01.proved it. She was left her own thinking what could go wrong?
:58:02. > :58:09.Anybody who allows themselves to have a word association game is not
:58:10. > :58:15.a good idea. She should have dodged that question completely. We heard
:58:16. > :58:19.from Arlene Foster and she was talking for the first time about the
:58:20. > :58:24.issue of the Brexit donation RC. What did you make of what she had to
:58:25. > :58:29.say about that donation of ?435,000? She should be much clearer. The
:58:30. > :58:33.following day it was revealed that the guy who was the source of the
:58:34. > :58:37.donation have handled it. She clearly knew all about. What it is
:58:38. > :58:40.out there, somebody will find the truth. It is much easier and
:58:41. > :58:44.politics just to say, this is what happened. This is how it happened,
:58:45. > :58:47.this is why we did it. If you leave questions unanswered, it is not only
:58:48. > :58:54.the interview is it like you who will go after, it is also twitter
:58:55. > :59:01.any social media world. Also the point about the blonde thing, it was
:59:02. > :59:07.epically stupid. It will not lose to a vote within unionism. She doesn't
:59:08. > :59:13.care. Final quick sentence? I agree. It will do her no harm. She based
:59:14. > :59:18.herself on Margaret Thatcher and she should stick to that and not try and
:59:19. > :59:18.be cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:19. > :59:18.our cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:19. > :59:19.be too cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:20. > :59:19.our policy. cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:20. > :59:19.be too fluffy. cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:20. > :59:19.our policy. Thank cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:20. > :59:19.be too fluffy. Thank cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:20. > :59:19.our policy. Thank you cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:20. > :59:19.be too fluffy. Thank you cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:20. > :59:19.our policy. Thank you very cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:20. > :59:19.be too fluffy. Thank you very cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:20. > :59:19.our policy. Thank you very much, cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:20. > :59:20.be too fluffy. Thank you very much. cancelled. And rent to own is still
:59:21. > :59:26.our policy. Thank you very much, Tom Brake. Andrew, back to you.
:59:27. > :59:28.So, two and half weeks to go till polling day,
:59:29. > :59:31.let's take stock of the campaign so far and look ahead
:59:32. > :59:40.Sam, Isabel and Steve are with me again.
:59:41. > :59:47.Sam, Mrs May had made a great thing about the just about managing. Not
:59:48. > :59:54.the poorest of the poor, but not really affluent people, who are
:59:55. > :59:58.maybe OK but it's a bit of a struggle. What is in the manifesto
:59:59. > :00:02.for them? There is something about the high profile items in the
:00:03. > :00:07.manifesto. She said she wants to help those just above the poorest
:00:08. > :00:12.level. But if you look at things like the winter fuel allowance,
:00:13. > :00:16.which is going to be given only to the poorest. If you look at free
:00:17. > :00:20.school meals for infants, those for the poorest are going to be kept,
:00:21. > :00:28.but the rest will go. The social care plan, those who are renting or
:00:29. > :00:33.in properties worth up to ?90,000, they are going to be treated, but
:00:34. > :00:39.those in properties worth above that, 250,000, for example, will
:00:40. > :00:46.have to pay. Which leads to the question - what is being done for
:00:47. > :00:49.the just about managings? There is something, the personal allowance
:00:50. > :00:54.that David Cameron promised in 2015, that they are not making a big deal
:00:55. > :01:00.of that, because they cannot say by how much. So you are looking in tax
:01:01. > :01:08.rises on the just about managings. Where will the tax rises come from.
:01:09. > :01:15.We do not know, that there is the 40 million pounds gap for the Tories to
:01:16. > :01:20.reach what they are pledging in their manifesto. We do not know how
:01:21. > :01:26.that is going to be made up, more tax, or more borrowing? So that is
:01:27. > :01:30.why the questions of the implications of removing the tax
:01:31. > :01:34.lock are so potentially difficult for Tory MPs. The Labour manifesto
:01:35. > :01:37.gives figures for the cost of certain policies and where the
:01:38. > :01:43.revenue will come from. You can argue about the figures, but at
:01:44. > :01:47.least we have the figures. The Tory manifesto is opaque on these
:01:48. > :01:51.matters. That applies to both the manifestos. Looking at the Labour
:01:52. > :01:55.manifesto on the way here this morning, when you look at the
:01:56. > :01:59.section on care for the elderly, they simply say, there are various
:02:00. > :02:05.ways in which the money for this can be raised. They are specific on
:02:06. > :02:10.other things. They are, and we heard John McDonnell this morning being
:02:11. > :02:18.very on that, and saying there is not a single ? in Tory manifesto. I
:02:19. > :02:24.have only got to page 66. It is quite broad brush and they are very
:02:25. > :02:29.open to challenge. For example, on the detail of a number of their
:02:30. > :02:33.flagship things. There is no detail on their immigration policy. They
:02:34. > :02:38.reiterate the ambition, but not how they are going to do that, without a
:02:39. > :02:45.massive increase in resource for Borders officials. We are at a time
:02:46. > :02:52.where average wages are lagging behind prices. And in work benefits
:02:53. > :02:57.remain frozen. I would have thought that the just-about-managings are
:02:58. > :03:00.people who are in work but they need some in work benefits to make life
:03:01. > :03:08.tolerable and be able to pay bills. Doesn't she has to do more for them?
:03:09. > :03:15.Maybe, but this whole manifesto was her inner circle saying, right, this
:03:16. > :03:22.is our chance to express our... It partly reads like a sort of
:03:23. > :03:26.philosophical essay at times. About the challenges, individualism
:03:27. > :03:32.against collectivism. Some of it reads quite well and is quite
:03:33. > :03:36.interesting, but in terms of its detail, Labour would never get away
:03:37. > :03:40.with it. They wouldn't be allowed to be so vague about where taxes are
:03:41. > :03:45.going to rise. We know there are going to be tax rises after the
:03:46. > :03:53.election, but we don't know where they will be. 100%, there will be
:03:54. > :03:58.tax rises. We know that they wanted a tax rise in the last budget, but
:03:59. > :04:02.they couldn't get it through because of the 2015 manifesto. Labour do
:04:03. > :04:08.offer a lot more detail. People could disagree with it, but there is
:04:09. > :04:14.a lot more detail. More to get your teeth into. About capital gains tax
:04:15. > :04:19.and the rises for better owners and so on. The SNP manifesto comes out
:04:20. > :04:25.this week, and the Greens and Sinn Fein. We think Ukip as well. There
:04:26. > :04:32.are more manifestos to come. The Lib Dems have already brought theirs
:04:33. > :04:36.out. Isn't the Liberal Democrat campaign in trouble? It doesn't seem
:04:37. > :04:41.to be doing particular the well in the polls, or at the local elections
:04:42. > :04:46.a few weeks ago. The Liberal Democrats are trying to fish in
:04:47. > :04:51.quite a small pool for votes. They are looking to get votes from those
:04:52. > :04:56.remainers who want to reverse the result, in effect. Tim Farron is
:04:57. > :05:03.promising a second referendum on the deal at the end of the negotiation
:05:04. > :05:09.process. And that is a hard sell. So those voting for remain on June 23
:05:10. > :05:15.are not low hanging fruit by any means? Polls suggesting that half of
:05:16. > :05:20.those want to reverse the result, so that is a feeling of about 20% on
:05:21. > :05:23.the Lib Dems, and they are getting slightly less than half at the
:05:24. > :05:29.moment, but there are not a huge amount of votes for them to get on
:05:30. > :05:38.that strategy. It doesn't feel like Tim Farron and the Lib Dems have
:05:39. > :05:42.promised enough. They are making a very serious case on cannabis use in
:05:43. > :05:46.a nightclub, but the optics of what they are discussing doesn't make
:05:47. > :05:50.them look like an anchor in a future coalition government that they would
:05:51. > :05:54.need to be. I wonder if we are seeing the re-emergence of the
:05:55. > :05:59.2-party system? And it is not the same two parties. In Scotland, the
:06:00. > :06:03.dynamics of this election seemed to be the Nationalists against the
:06:04. > :06:17.Conservatives. In England, if you look at what has happened to be Ukip
:06:18. > :06:21.vote, and what Sam was saying about the Lib Dems are struggling a bit to
:06:22. > :06:23.get some traction, it is overwhelmingly Labour and the
:06:24. > :06:25.Conservatives. A different 2-party system from Scotland, but a 2-party
:06:26. > :06:29.system. There are a number of different election is going on in
:06:30. > :06:34.parallel. In Scotland it is about whether you are unionist or not.
:06:35. > :06:39.Here, we have the collapse of the Ukip vote, which looks as though it
:06:40. > :06:43.is being redistributed in the Tories' favour. This is a unique
:06:44. > :06:50.election, and will not necessarily set the trend for elections to come.
:06:51. > :06:54.In the Tory manifesto, I spotted the fact that the fixed term Parliament
:06:55. > :07:02.act is going to be scrapped. That got almost no coverage! It turned
:07:03. > :07:06.out to be academic anyway, that it tells you something about how
:07:07. > :07:11.Theresa May is feeling, and she wants the control to call an
:07:12. > :07:14.election whenever it suits her. Re-emergence of the 2-party system,
:07:15. > :07:24.for this election or beyond? For this election, yes, but it shows the
:07:25. > :07:27.sort of robust strength of parties and their fragility. In other words,
:07:28. > :07:32.the Lib Dems haven't really recovered from the losses in the
:07:33. > :07:37.last general election, and are therefore not really seen as a
:07:38. > :07:42.robust vehicle to deliver Remain. If they were, they might be doing
:07:43. > :07:47.better. The Labour Party hasn't recovered in Scotland, and yet, if
:07:48. > :07:51.you look at the basic divide in England and Scotland and you see two
:07:52. > :07:57.parties battling it out, it is very, very hard for the smaller parties to
:07:58. > :08:03.break through and last. Many appear briefly on the political stage and
:08:04. > :08:08.then disappear again. The election had the ostensible goal of Brexit,
:08:09. > :08:13.but we haven't heard much about it in the campaign. Perhaps the Tories
:08:14. > :08:17.want to get back onto that. David Davis sounding quite tough this
:08:18. > :08:22.morning, the Brexit minister, saying there is no chance we will talk
:08:23. > :08:26.about 100 billion. And we have to have power in the negotiations on
:08:27. > :08:31.the free trade deal or what ever it is. I think they are keen to get the
:08:32. > :08:36.subject of the manifesto at this point, because it has not started
:08:37. > :08:40.too well. There is an irony that Theresa May ostensibly called the
:08:41. > :08:45.election because she needed a stronger hand in the Brexit
:08:46. > :08:48.negotiations, and there was an opportunity for the Lib Dems, with
:08:49. > :08:53.their unique offer of being the party that is absolutely against the
:08:54. > :08:59.outcome of the referendum, and offering another chance. There
:09:00. > :09:03.hasn't been much airtime on that particular pledge, because instead,
:09:04. > :09:09.this election has segued into being all about leadership. Theresa May's
:09:10. > :09:14.leadership, and looking again at the Tory manifesto, I was struck that
:09:15. > :09:21.she was saying that this is my plan for the future, not ABBA plan. Even
:09:22. > :09:27.when talking about social care, he manages to work in a bit about
:09:28. > :09:31.Theresa May and Brexit. And Boris Johnson this morning, an interview
:09:32. > :09:36.he gave on another political programme this morning, it was
:09:37. > :09:41.extraordinarily sycophantic for him. Isn't Theresa May wonderful. There
:09:42. > :09:47.is a man trying to secure his job in the Foreign Office! Will he succeed?
:09:48. > :09:55.I think she will leave him. Better in the tent than out. What did you
:09:56. > :10:00.make of David Davis' remarks? He was basically saying, we will walk away
:10:01. > :10:08.from the negotiating table if the Europeans slam a bill for 100
:10:09. > :10:13.billion euros. The point is that the Europeans will not slam a bill for
:10:14. > :10:18.100 billion euros on the negotiating table. That is the gross figure.
:10:19. > :10:23.There are all sorts of things that need to be taken into account. I
:10:24. > :10:30.imagine they will ask for something around the 50 or ?60 billion mark.
:10:31. > :10:34.It looks that they are trying to make it look like a concession when
:10:35. > :10:38.they do make their demands in order to soften the ground for what is
:10:39. > :10:42.going to happen just two weeks after general election day. He makes a
:10:43. > :10:47.reasonable point about having parallel talks. What they want to do
:10:48. > :10:52.straightaway is deal with the bill, Northern Ireland and citizens
:10:53. > :10:55.rights. All of those things are very complicated and interlinked issues,
:10:56. > :10:59.which cannot be dealt with in isolation. I wouldn't be surprised
:11:00. > :11:03.if we ended up with parallel talks, just to work out where we are going
:11:04. > :11:10.with Northern Ireland and the border. Steve, you can't work out
:11:11. > :11:15.what the Northern Ireland border will be, and EU citizens' writes
:11:16. > :11:20.here, until you work out what our relationship with the EU in the
:11:21. > :11:25.future will be. Indeed. The British government is under pressure to deal
:11:26. > :11:30.quickly with the border issue in Ireland, but feel they can't do so
:11:31. > :11:33.because when you have a tariff free arrangement outcome, or an
:11:34. > :11:37.arrangement that is much more protectionist, and that will
:11:38. > :11:40.determine partly the nature of the border. You cannot have a quick
:11:41. > :11:44.agreement on that front without knowing the rest of the deal. I
:11:45. > :11:49.think the negotiation will be complex. I am certain they want a
:11:50. > :11:54.deal rather than none, because this is no deal thing is part of the
:11:55. > :11:58.negotiation at this early stage. Sounding tough in the general
:11:59. > :12:03.election campaign also works electorally. But after the election,
:12:04. > :12:09.it will be a tough negotiation, beginning with this cost of Brexit.
:12:10. > :12:13.My understanding is that the government feels it's got to make
:12:14. > :12:20.the Europeans think they will not do a deal in order to get a deal. They
:12:21. > :12:24.don't want no deal. Absolutely not. And I'm sure it plays into the
:12:25. > :12:29.election. I'm sure the rhetoric will change when the election is over.
:12:30. > :12:31.That's all for today, thank you to all my guests.
:12:32. > :12:34.The Daily Politics will be back on BBC Two at 12.00
:12:35. > :12:38.And tomorrow evening I will be starting my series of interviews
:12:39. > :12:40.with the party leaders - first up is the Prime
:12:41. > :12:42.Minister, Theresa May, that's at 7pm on BBC One.
:12:43. > :12:46.And I'll be back here at the same time on BBC One next Sunday.
:12:47. > :12:50.Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.