:00:13. > :00:16.It's Sunday Morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.
:00:17. > :00:19.Labour attacks Conservative plans for social care and to means-test
:00:20. > :00:22.So can Jeremy Corbyn eat into the Tory lead
:00:23. > :00:28.Theresa May says her party's manifesto is all about fairness.
:00:29. > :00:32.We'll be speaking to a Conservative cabinet minister about the plans.
:00:33. > :00:35.The polls have always shown healthy leads for the Conservatives.
:00:36. > :00:45.But, now we've seen the manifestos, is Labour narrowing the gap?
:00:46. > :00:47.And on Sunday Politics Scotland: With two and a half weeks to go
:00:48. > :00:49.to the general election, I'll be asking the SNP's deputy
:00:50. > :00:51.leader Angus Robertson for an assessment of his party's
:00:52. > :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. > :01:07.the programme, and you can get involved by using
:01:08. > :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. > :01:33.The Work Pensions Secretary Damian Green has said his party will not
:01:34. > :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. > :02:20.Sam, is Labour beginning to get their argument across? What we had
:02:21. > :02:24.last week was bluntly what felt like not very Lynton Crosby approved
:02:25. > :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. > :02:37.campaign. I've been talking to MPs and ministers who acknowledge that
:02:38. > :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. > :03:43.party this morning feel this is a little light turbulence rather than
:03:44. > :03:47.anything that leaves the destination of victory in doubt. It it flips the
:03:48. > :03:52.normal politics. The Tories are going to make people who have a
:03:53. > :03:58.reasonable amount of assets pay for their social care. What is wrong
:03:59. > :04:01.with that? First, total credit for them for not pretending that all
:04:02. > :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. > :04:15.in the following Parliament, so they have no mandate to do anything and
:04:16. > :04:19.so do not do anything. It is courageous to do it. It is
:04:20. > :04:25.electorally risky, for the reasons that you suggest, that they pass the
:04:26. > :04:31.target their own natural supporter. And there is a sense that this is
:04:32. > :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. > :04:50.commas the victim, because you cannot insure Fritz, is against the
:04:51. > :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. > :05:07.look at the polls. Nearly five weeks ago, on Tuesday the 18th of April,
:05:08. > :05:12.Theresa May called the election. At that point, this was the median
:05:13. > :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. > :05:31.A draft of Labour's manifesto was leaked to the press. In the
:05:32. > :05:34.intervening weeks, support for the Conservatives and Labour had
:05:35. > :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. > :06:08.is how the parties currently stand on average. Labour are now on 34%,
:06:09. > :06:12.up 4% since the launch of their manifesto. The Conservatives are
:06:13. > :06:19.down two points since last Tuesday. Ukip and the Lib Dems are both
:06:20. > :06:24.unchanged on 8% and 5%. You can find this poll tracker on the BBC
:06:25. > :06:29.website, see how it was calculated, and see the results of national
:06:30. > :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. > :06:44.extremely healthy lead for the Tories. At the start of this
:06:45. > :06:50.campaign, most commentators expected to things to happen. First, the Lib
:06:51. > :06:55.Dems would have a significant surge. That hasn't happened. Second, Labour
:06:56. > :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. > :07:16.would say that a lot of Tory MPs wouldn't be too unhappy if Labour's
:07:17. > :07:23.result isn't quite as bad as has been anticipated. They don't want
:07:24. > :07:29.Corbyn to go anywhere. If the latest polls were to be the result on June
:07:30. > :07:34.the 8th, Mr Corbyn may not be in a rush to go anywhere. I still think
:07:35. > :07:39.it depends on the number of seats. If there is a landslide win, I
:07:40. > :07:45.think, one way or another, he will not stay. If it is much narrower, he
:07:46. > :07:50.has grounds for arguing he has done better than anticipated. The polls
:07:51. > :07:56.are very interesting. People compare this with 83. In 83, the Tory lead
:07:57. > :08:08.widened consistently throughout the campaign. There was the SDP -
:08:09. > :08:11.Liberal Alliance doing well in the polls. Here, the Lib Dems don't seem
:08:12. > :08:13.to be doing that. So the parallels with 83 don't really stack up. But
:08:14. > :08:17.let's see what happens. Still early days for the a lot of people are
:08:18. > :08:21.saying this is the result of the social care policy. We don't really
:08:22. > :08:25.know that. How do you beat them? In the last week or so, there's been
:08:26. > :08:30.the decision by some to hold their nose and vote Labour, who haven't
:08:31. > :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. > :08:51.that could be the decisive factor in many seats, rather than the Labour
:08:52. > :08:56.share of the boat picking up a bit or down a bit, depending on how
:08:57. > :08:59.turbulent the Tory manifesto makes it. Thank you for that.
:09:00. > :09:02.We've finally got our hands on the manifestos of the two main
:09:03. > :09:04.parties and, for once, voters can hardly complain that
:09:05. > :09:09.So, just how big is the choice on offer to the public?
:09:10. > :09:10.Since the Liberal Democrats and SNP have ruled out
:09:11. > :09:13.coalitions after June 8th, Adam Fleming compares the Labour
:09:14. > :09:16.Welcome to the BBC's election centre.
:09:17. > :09:19.Four minutes from now, when Big Ben strikes 10.00,
:09:20. > :09:23.we can legally reveal the contents of this, our exit poll.
:09:24. > :09:26.18 days to go, and the BBC's election night studio
:09:27. > :09:35.This is where David Dimbleby will sit, although there is no chair yet.
:09:36. > :09:39.The parties' policies are now the finished product.
:09:40. > :09:41.In Bradford, Jeremy Corbyn vowed a bigger state,
:09:42. > :09:44.the end of austerity, no more tuition fees.
:09:45. > :09:53.The Tory campaign, by contrast, is built on one word - fear.
:09:54. > :10:00.Down the road in Halifax, Theresa May kept a promise to get
:10:01. > :10:03.immigration down to the tens of thousands, and talked
:10:04. > :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. > :10:26.of purpose in our country, let us go forward together.
:10:27. > :10:29.Let's look at the Labour and Conservative
:10:30. > :10:35.On tax, Labour would introduce a 50p rate for top earners.
:10:36. > :10:59.The Conservatives ditched their triple lock, giving them
:11:00. > :11:01.freedom to put up income tax and national insurance,
:11:02. > :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. > :11:13.but provided few details for the cost of their policies.
:11:14. > :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. > :11:27.reaching an extra ?8 billion a year by the end of the parliament.
:11:28. > :11:31.Labour promised an extra ?30 billion over the course of the same period,
:11:32. > :11:37.plus free hospital parking and more pay for staff.
:11:38. > :11:44.The Conservatives would increase the value of assets you could
:11:45. > :11:48.protect from the cost of social care to ?100,000, but your home would be
:11:49. > :11:49.added to the assessment of your wealth,
:11:50. > :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. > :12:30.It is disgraceful, and we are calling upon the Conservative Party
:12:31. > :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. > :13:21.care costs. Why have you abandoned that? We've looked at it, and there
:13:22. > :13:26.are couple of proposals with the Dilnot proposal. Much of the benefit
:13:27. > :13:31.would go to those inheriting larger estates. The second point was it was
:13:32. > :13:36.hoped that a cap would stimulate the larger insurance products that would
:13:37. > :13:42.fill the gap, but there is no sign that those products are emerging.
:13:43. > :13:46.Without a cap, you will not get one. We have come forward with a new
:13:47. > :13:50.proposal which we think is fairer, provide more money for social care,
:13:51. > :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. > :14:08.one, getting a good Brexit deal is another. This demonstrates that
:14:09. > :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. > :14:25.your social care costs. Is that fair? It is right that for the
:14:26. > :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. > :14:47.in residential care, it can be wiped out ?223,000. If you are in
:14:48. > :14:54.domiciliary care, it can be out to ?23,000, plus you're domiciliary.
:14:55. > :14:58.Nobody should be forced to sell their house in their lifetime if
:14:59. > :15:00.they or their spouse needs long-term care. Again, we have protected that
:15:01. > :15:11.in the proposals we set out. But the state will basically take a
:15:12. > :15:15.chunk of your house when you die and they sell. In an essence it is a
:15:16. > :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. > :15:45.May's credit that we are being straightforward with the British
:15:46. > :15:48.people and saying that we face this long-term challenge. Our manifesto
:15:49. > :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. > :16:09.between the general taxpayer and those receiving the services. We
:16:10. > :16:13.think we have struck the right balance with this proposal. But it
:16:14. > :16:17.is entirely on the individual. People watching this programme, if
:16:18. > :16:24.they have a fair amount of assets, not massive, including the home,
:16:25. > :16:28.they will need to pay for everything themselves until their assets are
:16:29. > :16:33.reduced to ?100,000. It is not a balance, you're putting everything
:16:34. > :16:39.on the original two individual. At the moment, for those in residential
:16:40. > :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. > :16:51.seeing their protection going up by four times as much, so that is
:16:52. > :16:55.eliminating unfairness. Why should those in residential care be in a
:16:56. > :17:01.worse position than those receiving domiciliary care? But as I say, that
:17:02. > :17:04.money has to come from somewhere and we are sitting at a proper plan for
:17:05. > :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. > :17:15.economy, and to have a strong economy we need to deliver a good
:17:16. > :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. > :17:42.in residential care you pay for all of it until the last ?23,000, but if
:17:43. > :17:46.you are in domiciliary care, excluding your housing assets, but
:17:47. > :17:52.all of your other assets get used up until you are down to ?23,000 a
:17:53. > :17:59.year. And I think it is right at this point that a party that aspires
:18:00. > :18:03.to run this country for the long-term, to address the long-term
:18:04. > :18:07.challenges we have is a country, for us to be clear that we need to
:18:08. > :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. > :18:41.spend ?300,000 of their assets on social care before the state steps
:18:42. > :18:46.in to help...? As I said earlier, nobody will be forced to pay during
:18:47. > :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. > :19:15.be wiped out in the way that has happened up until now, down to the
:19:16. > :19:19.last three years. But when Labour propose this, George Osborne called
:19:20. > :19:23.it a death tax and you are now proposing a stealth death tax
:19:24. > :19:29.inheritance tax. Labour's proposals were very different. It is the same
:19:30. > :19:36.effect. Labour's were hitting everyone with an inheritance tax. We
:19:37. > :19:39.are saying that there are -- that there is a state contribution but
:19:40. > :19:45.the public receiving the services will have to pay for it out of
:19:46. > :19:49.assets, which have grown substantially. And which they might
:19:50. > :19:53.now lose to social care. But I would say that people in Hertfordshire pay
:19:54. > :19:58.a lot in income tracks, national insurance and VAT, and this is my
:19:59. > :20:02.bet is going to have to come from somewhere. Well, they are now going
:20:03. > :20:07.to pay a lot of tax and pay for social care. Turning to immigration,
:20:08. > :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. > :20:40.European neighbours were doing anything like it. Not surprisingly,
:20:41. > :20:47.that feeds through into the immigration numbers that we see. But
:20:48. > :20:53.it is right that we have that ambition because I do not believe it
:20:54. > :20:56.is sustainable to have hundreds of thousands net migration, you're
:20:57. > :21:00.after year after year, and only Theresa May of the Conservative
:21:01. > :21:04.Party is willing to address that. It has gone from being a target to an
:21:05. > :21:08.ambition, and I am pretty sure in a couple of years it will become an
:21:09. > :21:14.untimed aspiration. Is net migration now higher or lower than when you
:21:15. > :21:19.came to power in 2010? I think it is higher at the moment. Let's look at
:21:20. > :21:24.the figures. And there they are. You are right, it is higher, so after
:21:25. > :21:31.six years in power, promising to get it down to 100,000, it is higher. So
:21:32. > :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. > :21:58.But if you look at a lot of the steps that we have taken over the
:21:59. > :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. > :22:11.has made no difference to the headline figure. Clearly it would
:22:12. > :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. > :22:26.hundreds of thousands. If we get that good Brexit deal, one of the
:22:27. > :22:31.things we can do is tighten up in terms of access here. You say that
:22:32. > :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. > :23:12.the bit you have control over, you have failed to get that down into
:23:13. > :23:17.the tens of thousands. The general trend has gone up. Non-EU migration
:23:18. > :23:22.we have brought down over the last few years. Not by much, not by
:23:23. > :23:27.anywhere near your 100,000 target. But we clearly have more tools
:23:28. > :23:32.available to us, following Brexit. At this rate it will be around 2030
:23:33. > :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. > :23:43.or seven years, particularly the last four or five, we have seen the
:23:44. > :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. > :23:58.That is what you are telling me. I don't think anyone expected us to
:23:59. > :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. > :24:11.George Osborne says your target is economically illiterate. I disagree
:24:12. > :24:18.with George on that. He is my old boss but I disagree with him on that
:24:19. > :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. > :24:30.hundreds of thousands, year after year after year. Let me ask you one
:24:31. > :24:34.other thing because you are the chief secretary. Your promising that
:24:35. > :24:39.spending on health will be ?8 billion higher in five use time than
:24:40. > :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. > :24:52.we would increase spending by ?8 billion. And we are more than on
:24:53. > :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. > :25:20.way you can spend more money on the NHS is if you have a strong economy,
:25:21. > :25:24.and the biggest risk... But that is true of anything. I am trying to
:25:25. > :25:28.find out where the ?8 billion come from, where will it come from? Know
:25:29. > :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. > :25:50.coming from. The biggest risk to a strong economy would be a bad
:25:51. > :25:55.Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn would deliver. And we have a record of
:25:56. > :25:58.putting more money into the NHS. I think that past performance we can
:25:59. > :26:00.take forward. Thank you for joining us.
:26:01. > :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. > :26:10.Here's Boris Johnson on ITV's Peston programme earlier today:
:26:11. > :26:15.What we're trying to do is to address what I think
:26:16. > :26:17.everybody, all serious demographers acknowledge will be the massive
:26:18. > :26:21.problem of the cost of social care long-term.
:26:22. > :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. > :26:30.allows people to pass on a very substantial sum,
:26:31. > :26:32.still, to their kids, and takes away the fear
:26:33. > :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. > :26:54.care. The Tories are saying that if you have ?100,000 or more in assets,
:26:55. > :27:00.you should pay for your own social care. What is wrong with that? Well,
:27:01. > :27:04.I think the issue at the end of the day is the question of fairness. Is
:27:05. > :27:09.it fair? And what we're trying to do is to get to a situation where we
:27:10. > :27:14.have, for example, the Dilnot report, which identified that you
:27:15. > :27:17.actually have cap on your spending on social care. We are trying to get
:27:18. > :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. > :27:40.have seen their homes go up in value, if and when they sell, they
:27:41. > :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. > :28:06.elderly person's home for longer and you most probably have been in care
:28:07. > :28:10.for a longer period of time. On the other hand, you might have, if you
:28:11. > :28:14.have had a stroke, there may be continuing care needs paid for by
:28:15. > :28:17.the NHS. So at the end of the date it is trying to get a reasonable
:28:18. > :28:26.balance and just to pluck a figure of ?100,000 out of thin air is not
:28:27. > :28:31.sensible. You will have heard me say about David Gold that the house
:28:32. > :28:35.prices in his area, about 450,000 or so, not quite that, and that people
:28:36. > :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. > :28:56.before they hit the ?100,000 minimum. I hesitate to say that but
:28:57. > :29:00.is that not almost a socialist approach to social care that if you
:29:01. > :29:04.are in the affluent Home Counties with a big asset, you pay more, and
:29:05. > :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. > :29:26.is capped at a particular level, and the Dilnot report, after much
:29:27. > :29:31.examination, said we should have a cap on care costs at ?72,000. The
:29:32. > :29:34.Conservatives decided to ditch that and come up with another policy
:29:35. > :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. > :29:55.approach to this. David just said that this is a long term. You do not
:29:56. > :30:01.pick a figure out of thin air and use that as a long-term strategy.
:30:02. > :30:06.The Conservatives are now saying they will increase health spending
:30:07. > :30:11.over the next five years in real terms. You will increase health
:30:12. > :30:17.spending. In what way is your approach to health spending better
:30:18. > :30:22.than the Tories' now? We are contributing an extra 7.2 billion to
:30:23. > :30:27.the NHS and social care over the next few years. But you just don't
:30:28. > :30:32.put money into the NHS or social care. It has to be an integrated
:30:33. > :30:36.approach to social and health care. What we've got is just more of the
:30:37. > :30:42.same. What we don't want to do is just say, we ring-fenced an out for
:30:43. > :30:50.here or there. What you have to do is try to get that... Let me ask you
:30:51. > :30:54.again. In terms of the amount of resource that is going to be devoted
:30:55. > :31:00.in the next five years, and resource does matter for the NHS, in what way
:31:01. > :31:04.are your plans different now from the Conservative plans? The key is
:31:05. > :31:10.how you use that resource. By just putting money in, you've got to say,
:31:11. > :31:16.if we are going to put that money on, how do we use it? As somebody
:31:17. > :31:20.who has worked in social care for 40 years, you have to have a different
:31:21. > :31:26.approach to how you use that money. The money we are putting in, 7.7,
:31:27. > :31:30.may be similar in cash terms to what the Tories claim they are putting
:31:31. > :31:43.in, but it's not how much you put in per se, it is how you use it. You
:31:44. > :31:47.are going to get rid of car parking charges in hospital, and you are
:31:48. > :31:49.going to increase pay by taking the cap on pay off. So it doesn't
:31:50. > :31:52.necessarily follow that the money, under your way of doing it, will
:31:53. > :31:56.follow the front line. What you need in the NHS is a system that is
:31:57. > :32:03.capable of dealing with the patience you have. What we have now is on at
:32:04. > :32:10.five Asian of the NHS. Staff leaving, not being paid properly. So
:32:11. > :32:17.pay and the NHS go hand in hand. Let's move onto another area of
:32:18. > :32:22.policy where there is some confusion. Who speaks for the Labour
:32:23. > :32:28.Party on nuclear weapons? Is it Emily Thornbury, or Nia Griffith,
:32:29. > :32:34.defence spokesperson? The Labour manifesto. It is clear. We are
:32:35. > :32:43.committed to the nuclear deterrent, and that is the definitive... Is it?
:32:44. > :32:48.Emily Thornbury said that Trident could be scrapped in the defence
:32:49. > :32:53.review you would have immediately after taking power. On LBC on Friday
:32:54. > :32:59.night. She didn't, actually. I listened to that. What she actually
:33:00. > :33:03.said is, as part of a Labour government coming in, a new
:33:04. > :33:08.government, there is always a defence review. But not the concept
:33:09. > :33:15.of Trident in its substance. She said there would be a review in
:33:16. > :33:19.terms of, and this is in our manifesto. When you reduce
:33:20. > :33:25.something, you review how it is operated. The review could scrap
:33:26. > :33:30.Trident. It won't scrap Trident. The review is in the context of how you
:33:31. > :33:36.protect it from cyber attacks. This will issue was seized upon that she
:33:37. > :33:41.was saying that we would have another review of Trident or Labour
:33:42. > :33:48.would ditch it. That is nonsense. You will have seen some reports that
:33:49. > :33:52.MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn in the early 90s because of his
:33:53. > :34:01.links to Irish republicanism. This has caused some people, his links to
:34:02. > :34:05.the IRA and Sinn Fein, it has caused some concern. Could you just listen
:34:06. > :34:14.to this clip and react. Do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn
:34:15. > :34:18.all bombing. But do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn what was done
:34:19. > :34:23.with the British Army as well as both sides as well. What happened in
:34:24. > :34:30.Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well. Do you distinguish between
:34:31. > :34:36.state forces, what the British Army did and the IRA? Well, in a sense,
:34:37. > :34:41.the treatment of IRA prisoners which made them into virtual political
:34:42. > :34:46.prisoners suggested that the British government and the state saw some
:34:47. > :34:53.kind of almost equivalent in it. My point is that the whole violence if
:34:54. > :34:59.you was terrible, was appalling, and came out of a process that had been
:35:00. > :35:05.allowed to fester in Northern Ireland for a very long time. That
:35:06. > :35:09.was from about two years ago. Can you explain why the Leader of the
:35:10. > :35:13.Labour Party, Her Majesty 's opposition, the man who would be our
:35:14. > :35:20.next Prime Minister, finds it so hard to condemn IRA arming? I think
:35:21. > :35:23.it has to be within the context that Jeremy Corbyn for many years trying
:35:24. > :35:32.to move the peace protest... Process along. So why wouldn't you condemn
:35:33. > :35:39.IRA bombing? Again, that was an issue, a traumatic event in Irish -
:35:40. > :35:44.British relations that went on for 30 years. It is a complicated
:35:45. > :35:50.matter. Bombing is not that complicated. If you are a man of
:35:51. > :35:54.peace, surely you would condemn the bomb and the bullet? Let me say
:35:55. > :36:00.this, I condemn the bomb and the bullet. Why can't your leader? You
:36:01. > :36:05.would have to ask Jeremy Corbyn, but that is in the context of what he
:36:06. > :36:07.was trying to do over a 25 year period to move the priest process
:36:08. > :36:10.along. Thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35,
:36:11. > :36:18.you're watching the Sunday Politics. Good morning and welcome
:36:19. > :36:21.to Sunday Politics Scotland. to the growing pile of manifestos,
:36:22. > :36:30.I'll ask the party's deputy leader, Angus Robertson, whether his party
:36:31. > :36:33.has any fresh ideas. And whether they're really committed
:36:34. > :36:37.to another independence referendum. And a little local difficulty
:36:38. > :36:40.or a growing headache? We'll talk to Scottish Labour's
:36:41. > :36:42.Deputy Leader about why all Aberdeen's Labour councillors
:36:43. > :36:48.have been suspended from the party. Now, the SNP were the overwhelmingly
:36:49. > :36:52.dominant party in Scotland at the last general election -
:36:53. > :36:54.and they'll be hoping things But they are facing challenges -
:36:55. > :37:00.over their track record in government and over
:37:01. > :37:02.their plans to hold another Well, joining me now is the SNP's
:37:03. > :37:23.Deputy Leader, Angus Robertson. We are tonight different positions
:37:24. > :37:26.on an independence referendum from Nicola Sturgeon this week. In an
:37:27. > :37:33.interview with Gary Robison, she said it was a question of if not
:37:34. > :37:41.when. Yesterday, she'd said when not death. Are you committed to holding
:37:42. > :37:44.a referendum on independence? Well, firstly that is a
:37:45. > :37:48.mischaracterisation of what the First Minister said. The future of
:37:49. > :37:53.Scotland should lie in Scotland's Hans. I think it is important we put
:37:54. > :37:59.on record this is an issue that was already determined in the last
:38:00. > :38:08.Scottish Parliament election. The party that went to the country with
:38:09. > :38:13.a choice, the SNP had this in their manifesto. The opposing parties lost
:38:14. > :38:19.the election. The public has already given a mandate to the Scottish
:38:20. > :38:25.Government. Since then, the Scottish Parliament has endorsed that
:38:26. > :38:31.position. It is... Of course there will be a referendum because the
:38:32. > :38:34.people have determined we need a choice on our future. We should
:38:35. > :38:42.never lose sight of the fact that everybody else in Europe is going to
:38:43. > :38:49.have a say about our future. If the other 27 member states are going to
:38:50. > :38:53.be able to determine the future of Scotland in Europe, it seems
:38:54. > :38:58.unimaginable that we in this country cannot decide on our future. I
:38:59. > :39:03.respect the democratic institutions of Scotland. It is a shame the
:39:04. > :39:08.Tories do not appear to. Just to be clear, you have already asked for a
:39:09. > :39:11.section 30 order which would allow the Scottish Parliament to organise
:39:12. > :39:18.another referendum. But you don't just want the power to organise one
:39:19. > :39:28.if you decide to do it, you actually want to hold one some time in late
:39:29. > :39:33.2018 or 2019? Yes. I should apologise to the viewers as there is
:39:34. > :39:36.a dreadful delay in the satellite link. Which is why you appear not to
:39:37. > :39:56.be answering the questions, but... I am apologising
:39:57. > :40:02.to the viewers for the delay on the satellite link. The good news is
:40:03. > :40:10.from where I am standing, I don't have a delay. If the Conservatives
:40:11. > :40:19.win this election, they have said they will not be another referendum
:40:20. > :40:27.unless firstly there the argue Brexit talks should be finished.
:40:28. > :40:31.They have now added another condition that there should be
:40:32. > :40:44.popular support for it. What options do you have to do anything about it?
:40:45. > :40:49.It is true that the Tories are ahead in England. That is a strong reason
:40:50. > :40:53.for everyone in Scotland to ensure there is a strong voice representing
:40:54. > :41:00.Scotland's interests and Westminster. I haven't seen a single
:41:01. > :41:06.opinion poll that suggests Scotland will win in Scotland. If the people
:41:07. > :41:09.in Scotland determine they want SNP representatives at Westminster, we
:41:10. > :41:14.will all have been sent there to stand up for the rights of the
:41:15. > :41:18.Scottish Parliament, of the Scottish Government, and the mandate the
:41:19. > :41:20.people of Scotland gave in the last Scottish election. Or we remain a
:41:21. > :41:24.situation where the Tories are seeing the people of Scotland will
:41:25. > :41:29.not be able to determine their own future because of what an opinion
:41:30. > :41:33.poll? The last time I looked, in normal democracies, if political
:41:34. > :41:38.parties win elections and there men if fast stock has been endorsed by
:41:39. > :41:42.the people, that is going to be respected. I think the people of
:41:43. > :41:46.Scotland and their views on the subject and everything else should
:41:47. > :41:51.be respected. Which is why I think it is unimaginable if there is a UK
:41:52. > :41:56.Tory party victory over the rest of the UK but the SNP is returned in
:41:57. > :42:03.Scotland, they can continuously turned their backs on the
:42:04. > :42:10.democratically expressed wishes of the people of this part of the
:42:11. > :42:19.United Kingdom. If they do do what they are saying they will do, which
:42:20. > :42:23.is simply say no for a period which could go 145, six, seven, eight
:42:24. > :42:30.years, you say it is unimaginable, but if that is what they do, is
:42:31. > :42:35.there anything realistically other than complaining that you can do?
:42:36. > :42:40.The first thing we have to make sure is that Scotland's constituencies
:42:41. > :42:46.represented by SNP parliamentarians who will stand up for Scotland's
:42:47. > :42:54.interests. As opposed to Scottish Tories who want. Or in the case of
:42:55. > :43:01.this constituency, won't even turn up to important debate because they
:43:02. > :43:04.are refereeing football matches. We might hear brazen arrogance from
:43:05. > :43:08.Tories down south suggesting they're just going to discount the views of
:43:09. > :43:12.people in Scotland, at some point, the penny is going to drop that it
:43:13. > :43:15.is inconsistent to say that the union matters so much that we
:43:16. > :43:21.respect the views of people right across the nations and regions of
:43:22. > :43:24.these islands, but to act in the diametrically opposed away and just
:43:25. > :43:30.ignore the democratic will of people in Scotland or anywhere else, I
:43:31. > :43:37.think is unsustainable for Unionism. We don't want to refer to
:43:38. > :43:41.constituencies. That is an interest of fairness. It is not fair to talk
:43:42. > :43:50.about particular constituencies unless we have everyone standing in
:43:51. > :43:54.that constituency. If in this election, you will be hoping you do
:43:55. > :43:58.as well as last time, but should the SNP even lose one or two seats, your
:43:59. > :44:06.political opponents will save you have less than 50% of the vote, that
:44:07. > :44:11.means that over 50% of people in Scotland voted for parties which are
:44:12. > :44:19.against having a referendum. What would you reply to that? It is a
:44:20. > :44:23.very odd understanding of democracy. The last time I looked, the
:44:24. > :44:28.important thing that happened in elections is who wins. At the
:44:29. > :44:32.moment, it looks like the largest single group of voters in Scotland
:44:33. > :44:38.won't the XMP to represent them. You're suggesting that because a
:44:39. > :44:44.party that has almost every seat in the country loses one and it loses
:44:45. > :44:48.legitimacy. I cannot believe in the 21st century that is a common
:44:49. > :44:52.understanding of how democracy works. The SNP represents almost
:44:53. > :44:58.every single one of the seats in Scotland. It has been suggested now
:44:59. > :45:03.that if we were to lose one or two seats, somehow we have lost all
:45:04. > :45:10.legitimacy. The mandate we have been given by the electorate of Scotland
:45:11. > :45:17.somehow does not count. It is as a strange view of democracy and
:45:18. > :45:22.society. Every vote counts equally. Is the largest single number of
:45:23. > :45:27.people in Scotland vote SNP, political parties should respect
:45:28. > :45:35.that. Either simply suggesting what your political opponents would say.
:45:36. > :45:40.You have suggested that if you are the largest party in Scotland, you
:45:41. > :45:44.want some sort of seat in the Brexit negotiations. What is it you want,
:45:45. > :45:48.and what have the British government said? Viewers will remember the
:45:49. > :45:53.Scottish Government worked very hard to try and get a compromise
:45:54. > :45:59.agreement with the UK Government, to try to get a joint approach and work
:46:00. > :46:03.out whether we could find a differentiate arrangement to satisfy
:46:04. > :46:07.different parts of the UK. The majority of people in Scotland voted
:46:08. > :46:11.to remain. We wanted to work with the UK Government to try to deliver
:46:12. > :46:15.that. For whatever reason, Theresa May and colleagues have decided they
:46:16. > :46:22.can ignore that. We're suggesting that if people in Scotland want
:46:23. > :46:25.Scotland's interests to be taken seriously, it would be a good thing
:46:26. > :46:31.for the Scottish Government to be directly represented in building the
:46:32. > :46:39.UK's case in relation to Brexit negotiations. It is a democratic
:46:40. > :46:41.point. If you want Scotland to have a strong voice to influence
:46:42. > :46:46.negotiations and make sure we don't have the hard chaotic damaging
:46:47. > :46:50.Brexit the UK Government is heading towards, one has to have as many SNP
:46:51. > :46:55.parliamentarians as possible. Is not, were not going to see the
:46:56. > :46:59.return of all fisheries powers, agriculture powers that of support
:47:00. > :47:05.we require in rural communities. It is only by having a direct Scottish
:47:06. > :47:11.Government and SNP voice. In many other European countries, they have
:47:12. > :47:16.to take on board the views of different parts of the country. If
:47:17. > :47:27.that is possible elsewhere, it should be possible in the UK. It
:47:28. > :47:31.shouldn't beyond the wit of imagination to incorporate different
:47:32. > :47:35.prowl these across the English regions and other nations. Now,
:47:36. > :47:40.social care. Whatever you think of the details of the system, in the
:47:41. > :47:45.Conservative manifesto, it says people can reserve ?100,000 of their
:47:46. > :47:49.assets, even if they have to sell their homes. If you have to sell
:47:50. > :47:54.your house in Scotland, as I understand it, you're on the
:47:55. > :48:03.protected up to ?26,000. Will you have proposals to give equivalent
:48:04. > :48:05.protection up to ?100,000 for people here who might be worried that
:48:06. > :48:07.should they have dementia it will have to sell their home and to their
:48:08. > :48:09.children who might worry that they're in inheritance will
:48:10. > :48:14.effectively disappear, as can happen at the moment? I think it is
:48:15. > :48:18.important to stress we are in a different situation in Scotland and
:48:19. > :48:25.so we already have free care for the elderly and that is something that
:48:26. > :48:33.one doesn't have in England. We have devolved powers. I can't give a
:48:34. > :48:36.detailed preview of every aspect of the SNP manifesto which is being
:48:37. > :48:39.launched this week. But I'm trying to make the point that we have
:48:40. > :48:45.different policy approaches in Scotland, thank goodness, on this.
:48:46. > :48:48.We have free personal care. In England, as part of an
:48:49. > :48:54.intergenerational debate, the Tories seem to be wanting to pull away any
:48:55. > :48:57.support for older people in our communities. There are elements
:48:58. > :49:05.which will impact Scotland. For example, the triple lock on
:49:06. > :49:09.pensions. They have confirmed they will give up on that. The SNP will
:49:10. > :49:11.support the triple lock. All other questions, you will have to wait for
:49:12. > :49:24.the manifesto launch. For many, who are elderly, the issue
:49:25. > :49:32.of whether it is a double lock or of the lot is not as that important as
:49:33. > :49:38.the issue of whether they have to sell the house. The point is you
:49:39. > :49:43.cannot seem to guarantee what Theresa May can guarantee. I am sure
:49:44. > :49:48.you are not want as here monger amongst older viewers. You and I
:49:49. > :49:52.would want to stress that in Scotland we have free personal care,
:49:53. > :49:58.that means one does not need to sell is one house to get that sort of
:49:59. > :50:09.support. The Scottish Government is committed to it, you already get it.
:50:10. > :50:15.Wells to retaining free personal care, and the triple lock, we are
:50:16. > :50:18.saying the Tories represent a range of policy and oppose all switch will
:50:19. > :50:24.it especially poorer pensioners and away that is an except the ball. The
:50:25. > :50:30.SNP are standing up for pensioners, if you want that support, people
:50:31. > :50:39.will have to support SNP in the election. We are running out of
:50:40. > :50:43.time, there is a lot of controversy about the rape close. I using that
:50:44. > :50:50.Scotland will not implement the limiting of tax credit to children
:50:51. > :50:55.who fall under the rape close in the first place? Forgive me again and
:50:56. > :51:01.thank you for the opportunity to preview the manifesto but I am not
:51:02. > :51:06.in a position to go into the details of the manifesto. The SNP and my
:51:07. > :51:13.colleagues at Westminster have work tirelessly to expose what is utterly
:51:14. > :51:19.unacceptable way to treat people who have gone through the violation of
:51:20. > :51:22.rape. The SNP will do everything we can to change that situation at
:51:23. > :51:26.Westminster, because was a decision there that has brought this about.
:51:27. > :51:31.Unfortunately Tories standing in every single constituency in
:51:32. > :51:36.Scotland support the rape close. The SNP do not. We will have to leave it
:51:37. > :51:37.at that. Thank you very much for joining us with a view of the
:51:38. > :51:40.bridge. Now, in the week before the general
:51:41. > :51:42.election, BBC Scotland will be hosting a series of 'Ask
:51:43. > :51:45.the Leader' TV debates - a different leader each night
:51:46. > :51:48.- chaired by Glenn Campbell If you'd like to take part,
:51:49. > :51:52.then you can apply online by visiting our BBC News
:51:53. > :51:54.and Reporting Scotland websites. It's been a week of frantic
:51:55. > :51:56.manoeuvring across Scotland's councils, as political parties
:51:57. > :51:58.try to form working administrations. After typically spending the months
:51:59. > :52:02.before the council elections decrying the record of other
:52:03. > :52:04.Parties, you won't be surprised to hear that many of those same
:52:05. > :52:07.politicians have now found that they can, indeed,
:52:08. > :52:09.work with each other. In Aberdeen though, Labour
:52:10. > :52:11.members who got together with the Conservatives have been
:52:12. > :52:25.left out in the cold, After this month's local elections,
:52:26. > :52:32.the road ahead for a Scotland's councils is looking Keeler. In
:52:33. > :52:36.Glasgow the SNP scored a significant victory. Elsewhere the scores are
:52:37. > :52:41.confused and that could lead to political roadblocks. When that
:52:42. > :52:44.happens, marriages of political convenience can look very
:52:45. > :52:50.attractive. But when Labour councillors decided to just that in
:52:51. > :52:54.Aberdeen, forming a college in with the Conservatives and independents
:52:55. > :52:58.and excusing the SNP, they were smacked down by their party
:52:59. > :53:05.leadership. When the council is Duggan, they were suspended from the
:53:06. > :53:09.party. Your reaction from the suspension at the Labour Party. I am
:53:10. > :53:14.disappointed because I have been a member of the Labour Party a long
:53:15. > :53:18.time. We took the decision we wanted to go into a coalition because we
:53:19. > :53:22.felt it was the right decision for the people of Aberdeen. We have
:53:23. > :53:27.anti-austerities means within the programme that will be brought
:53:28. > :53:31.forward. In Aberdeen show the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats
:53:32. > :53:35.also came together. The new deputy leader says unions like this can
:53:36. > :53:41.bear fruit for voters. Aberdeenshire is a very good counsel. It has a
:53:42. > :53:44.very good reputation across scale wind and across Aberdeenshire it has
:53:45. > :53:50.been a good and effective counsel. I would not say despite of coalition
:53:51. > :53:54.but because of coalition. Because we have worked together we have enabled
:53:55. > :53:59.to park national politics at the door and focus on what is best for
:54:00. > :54:10.Aberdeenshire. Labour's Aberdeen trouble has provided its... When a
:54:11. > :54:15.party goes into election, it states very clearly what we will do. The
:54:16. > :54:19.SNP said it would not do deals with the Tories. People knew what they
:54:20. > :54:24.were voting for. The difference in Aberdeen, they thought they were
:54:25. > :54:27.voting for Labour and ended up getting a towering council. I do not
:54:28. > :54:31.think that is representative of what people would have wanted full top
:54:32. > :54:35.the Scottish Conservatives say that in trying to scupper the Aberdeen
:54:36. > :54:41.deal, the leader has shown poor judgment. Kezia Dugdale has made it
:54:42. > :54:44.clear that she now pretends to be a pro UK party and wants to protect
:54:45. > :54:51.the union, she has made the wrong choice and judgment that. It is
:54:52. > :54:55.clear she cannot be trusted with the union. Labour has forbidden in as
:54:56. > :55:00.those in West Lothian with doing a deal with conservatives there. And
:55:01. > :55:04.with negotiations to form coalitions elsewhere, they will continue next
:55:05. > :55:06.week. If they want a happy ending, they will have to find a way to live
:55:07. > :55:08.together for the sake of the voters. Well, joining me now to discuss some
:55:09. > :55:11.of the points raised there is Scottish Labour's Deputy Leader,
:55:12. > :55:18.Alex Rowley. Barney Crockett, who is the new
:55:19. > :55:23.Provincetown of Aberdeen and is Labour, he said a couple of days ago
:55:24. > :55:27.he was confident with this bat he is having with the Labour Party, would
:55:28. > :55:33.soon be over and he would be reinstated as a full member of the
:55:34. > :55:36.party. Will he? If the Labour councillors, former Labour
:55:37. > :55:41.councillors and Aberdeen withdraw from the deal that did not have
:55:42. > :55:45.agreement with the Scottish executive committee, then yes he
:55:46. > :55:50.would be reinstated. But if they stay as part of the administration,
:55:51. > :55:56.Norway? No. There is a process that will have to be undertaken. The rule
:55:57. > :56:00.book states that when a council, a Labour council want to enter in a
:56:01. > :56:04.coalition, they have to give the agreement of the Scottish is active
:56:05. > :56:09.committee. In the case of Aberdeen, they do not have that agreement from
:56:10. > :56:12.the proposal they put forward. If they do not withdraw from the
:56:13. > :56:16.administration, there is no sign they will withdraw, they will be
:56:17. > :56:26.expelled from the Labour Party's they will continue with the
:56:27. > :56:30.suspension. Then there will be an investigation. A decision will be
:56:31. > :56:33.taken. The argument was that they should not go into this
:56:34. > :56:40.administration with the Conservatives because this would
:56:41. > :56:45.implement austerity in some way. Can you tell us what specifically was
:56:46. > :56:52.the agreed to that made the Scottish executive at the Labour Party
:56:53. > :56:57.rejected? Each group is setting out what the proposal is. Specific areas
:56:58. > :56:59.that the Scottish executive committee have highlighted is
:57:00. > :57:04.firstly that Labour would make a difference. What is the difference
:57:05. > :57:08.Labour would be making by entering into a coalition. What would they be
:57:09. > :57:15.delivering? The policy agenda has to be first. It cannot just be about...
:57:16. > :57:21.Secondly, each group was asked to set out very clearly how they would
:57:22. > :57:27.oppose austerity, how the words in the local area mitigate austerity.
:57:28. > :57:29.In the case of Aberdeen when the proposal was brought forward to the
:57:30. > :57:34.executive, there were concerns that that was not clear how they would
:57:35. > :57:38.deal with and fight against austerity. Secondly in Aberdeen,
:57:39. > :57:45.there was also concerned because they were not, the group coming
:57:46. > :57:49.together would not form a majority administration in the council. That
:57:50. > :57:52.was a concern as well. Other groups who have brought forward proposals
:57:53. > :57:57.didn't necessarily get them through the first time of bringing forward.
:57:58. > :58:03.They were asked to go back and have a look at key areas that were of
:58:04. > :58:07.concern to the Scottish executive. In Aberdeen, they decided to go
:58:08. > :58:12.ahead anyway and therefore they are clearly in breach of the rules. In
:58:13. > :58:16.faith, or in South Ayrshire were Labour has gone into administration
:58:17. > :58:21.with the Scottish National Party, can you give us some examples of
:58:22. > :58:25.things, either things that won't happen in these that areas will
:58:26. > :58:29.happen in Aberdeen, or things that won't happen in Aberdeen that will
:58:30. > :58:32.happen in these areas? We have 40,000 children more in poverty
:58:33. > :58:39.today than we did have last year at this time. 260,000 children in
:58:40. > :58:43.poverty across Scotland. Local authorities are taking the brunt of
:58:44. > :58:48.that in terms of having to put into services, invest in services and try
:58:49. > :58:54.about those people, as food banks in Scotland will... What has this got
:58:55. > :59:01.to do with the differences in these areas? They will expose and attack
:59:02. > :59:10.the parties who are behind the austerity. What will be different
:59:11. > :59:14.and Aberdeen? What is different in Fife is that they have set out
:59:15. > :59:19.clearly how they will oppose austerity and they have set out
:59:20. > :59:24.clearly as I counsel how they will, that they will fight austerity,
:59:25. > :59:29.every step of the way. They will do everything to mitigate austerity.
:59:30. > :59:32.They will not be any cuts and five? The coalition agreement that
:59:33. > :59:37.designed sets out very clearly how they are going to tackle the worst
:59:38. > :59:43.impacts of austerity, how they will address poverty. Part of that is to
:59:44. > :59:49.take the fight to the Tory government. The Tories in Scotland
:59:50. > :59:51.are in complete denial. What you are saying is completely mysterious, the
:59:52. > :59:58.difference in areas like Aberdeen where you have deal with the Tories
:59:59. > :00:06.and in other areas. The Tory party in Scotland are in complete denial
:00:07. > :00:10.about the impact of their policies. They are in denial about the impact
:00:11. > :00:15.that their policies are having. You just don't want deals with the
:00:16. > :00:22.Tories? We will not enter into coalition with parties who are in
:00:23. > :00:25.complete denial about the impact... Aberdeen came forward with a
:00:26. > :00:31.coalition agreement that set out very clearly the impact that Tory
:00:32. > :00:39.policy was having on Aberdeen with a clear commitment to fight that. Then
:00:40. > :00:46.people would be more comfortable. You say they act as an accelerator
:00:47. > :00:49.for them. The SNP are failing to use the powers and the Scottish
:00:50. > :00:55.parliament in the way that they do. Why is it OK to be in a deal with
:00:56. > :00:59.the SNP? Any coalition agreement with the SNP, those councils will
:01:00. > :01:03.fight for the investment, they will campaign for investment, so they
:01:04. > :01:07.will campaign with the Scottish Government, against the Scottish
:01:08. > :01:14.Government, to get that investment come in. We will stand up to
:01:15. > :01:18.austerity, stand up to the poverty that is impacting on people in
:01:19. > :01:22.Scotland. If people are watching this in Aberdeen Association or
:01:23. > :01:27.five, I think they will be completely mystified as to
:01:28. > :01:31.impractical terms, what will happen to Aberdeen as to what is different
:01:32. > :01:41.happening in Fife, other than some rhetoric. Give me some practical
:01:42. > :01:43.examples. One practical example? We are not satisfied the coalition
:01:44. > :01:49.proposals being forward from Aberdeen set out clear enough... I
:01:50. > :01:53.am telling you, they were not satisfied that the proposals that
:01:54. > :01:56.were brought forward from Aberdeen set out clearly enough how they were
:01:57. > :02:02.going to deal with austerity and how they were going to take on the party
:02:03. > :02:07.of austerity in Scotland. This is austerity as a platonic abstract
:02:08. > :02:10.idea. You cannot give me a single practical example. What is the
:02:11. > :02:15.difference between Aberdeen and five? They have not set out very
:02:16. > :02:21.clearly how they intend to challenge, fight that. This has not
:02:22. > :02:26.happened at by accident. This has happened because of a Tory party in
:02:27. > :02:28.denial of the human misery it is creating in Scotland. We will have
:02:29. > :02:30.to leave it there. So, how are the political
:02:31. > :02:32.skirmishes, the manifesto promises and the myriad photo calls playing
:02:33. > :02:35.out as far as the voters Professor John Curtice
:02:36. > :02:46.is as well placed as anyone He joins us now. Labour must be
:02:47. > :02:51.quite cheered by the polls we have seen today, are are they been
:02:52. > :03:01.misconstrued? You are certainly right that it looks as though the
:03:02. > :03:07.Conservative leader --... When she called the election, the
:03:08. > :03:11.Conservatives were around 16 - 17 points ahead of the Labour Party on
:03:12. > :03:14.average. The first immediate consequence of calling the election
:03:15. > :03:20.was a decline in Ukip support, going directly to the Conservatives, such
:03:21. > :03:27.we were getting polls putting Conservatives 20 points ahead.
:03:28. > :03:31.Gradually during the chorus over the last two - 2.5 weeks, the Labour
:03:32. > :03:35.vote has been rising. Until this morning we would have said the
:03:36. > :03:41.Labour Party has played catch up. They are only 16 or 17 points
:03:42. > :03:45.behind. That would be enough to give Theresa May a landslide of 100 or
:03:46. > :03:53.so. We have had for polls this morning. Two can tuck did before the
:03:54. > :03:59.manifesto launch. To dine afterwards. They have leads ranging
:04:00. > :04:03.between nine and 13 points. Once the lead get down to that kind of level,
:04:04. > :04:10.then be again to ask ourselves whether or not Theresa May is
:04:11. > :04:14.guaranteed to get the landslide she is looking for. It was only as
:04:15. > :04:24.7-point lead that the Conservatives had last time, that only got Theresa
:04:25. > :04:28.May a of 12. It gets to the level of 2015, yes Theresa May will still be
:04:29. > :04:32.the favourite to be Prime Minister, but she may not get the landslide.
:04:33. > :04:38.What do the polls tend to do in the UK? If they get it wrong, the over
:04:39. > :04:43.estimate labour. That is something that is in the back of everyone's
:04:44. > :04:47.made. Was that not corrected? The polls have done their best. But
:04:48. > :04:52.whether or not they have succeeded, the truth is we will not know until
:04:53. > :04:57.June nine. Any intelligent person will be aware that there is a
:04:58. > :05:02.potential uncertainty. The second potential uncertainty, the polls
:05:03. > :05:06.suggest may be going on, insofar as there is a conservative advance,
:05:07. > :05:10.that advance may be stronger in the North of England. In Scotland and
:05:11. > :05:14.the Midlands than it is in the south of England. If that happens, even
:05:15. > :05:20.the Conservatives have a majority across the country of 12% points,
:05:21. > :05:23.Theresa May might still get a lying splayed. There is plenty for Labour
:05:24. > :05:28.to worry about but the truth is an election which in a sense looked
:05:29. > :05:31.like it was just heading inevitably towards a Tory landslide has just
:05:32. > :05:37.begun to get a little more interesting.
:05:38. > :05:46.To do this. Is normally the case that if the gap in the polls narrows
:05:47. > :05:50.during the campaign, would be normally expected to widen again as
:05:51. > :06:01.we get nearer to polling day? Or Genaro Pfizer -- or two narrow
:06:02. > :06:05.further? In 2015, nothing really happened in the polls throughout.
:06:06. > :06:10.They were persistently wrong, but constantly pointing to a narrow
:06:11. > :06:14.outcome. We have had two very substantial movements in these
:06:15. > :06:23.polls. The first is the rise in Conservative support. Now we have
:06:24. > :06:26.seen Labour support rise by five or six percentage points. These are by
:06:27. > :06:33.historical standards rather remarkable movements. It suggests we
:06:34. > :06:39.have an electorate which hasn't quite made its mind up. I don't
:06:40. > :06:43.think you could look at a historical precedents and say you can forget
:06:44. > :06:47.this. The rise in labour support has been evident in the polls long
:06:48. > :06:54.before this weekend and long before the Tory manifesto launch. What were
:06:55. > :06:58.seen at the moment is not within any margin of error? Looks like it
:06:59. > :07:04.really is reflecting a change? Even of the polls are wrong in terms of
:07:05. > :07:11.their levels, one thing we can rely the polls is to identify change. We
:07:12. > :07:16.have seen the polls persistently and gradually record at least some
:07:17. > :07:19.increase in Labour support. No guarantee it will continue. No
:07:20. > :07:24.guarantee the Labour Party have momentum. Are there any Scottish
:07:25. > :07:30.polls? Kilmichael was a Scottish poll came out on Friday morning to
:07:31. > :07:36.confirm what we already knew. The SNP are running at around 42%. The
:07:37. > :07:44.Conservatives just short of 30%. That is certainly enough to mean the
:07:45. > :07:52.SNP will lose some seats. The Liberal Democrats might pick up a
:07:53. > :07:58.couple of seats. Edinburgh South, we never know what will happen from any
:07:59. > :08:00.kind of opinion poll at all. Thank you.
:08:01. > :08:04.And time now for a look at the Week Ahead.
:08:05. > :08:06.I'm joined by journalist Katie Grant and Scottish Political Editor
:08:07. > :08:22.Tom, is a realistic to think this election will suddenly become close
:08:23. > :08:30.and We would all love it to be like that. Looking at the Conservative
:08:31. > :08:38.headline at the moment, it is still mid-40s, that is Tony Blair at his
:08:39. > :08:40.height sort of level. Drama would be nice. I think the polls are showing
:08:41. > :08:56.a big gap. I think the Conservatives with the
:08:57. > :09:00.manifesto have tried to tackle some of the major issues in quite a
:09:01. > :09:04.fundamental way which is not going to be popular, for example social
:09:05. > :09:09.care. There will be controversy about that. The seem to be practical
:09:10. > :09:19.solutions to major problems, whereas I think the Labour Party manifesto,
:09:20. > :09:24.and some of the others, are more fantastic. Mobot people might like
:09:25. > :09:29.to see. To be fair to Labour, they point out that there is a
:09:30. > :09:36.Conservative one has a separate document was it costs everything in
:09:37. > :09:43.it. They do, but I don't know whether voters are interested in
:09:44. > :09:46.that. We see practical things which are the questions of what can work
:09:47. > :09:50.and what can we afford, and the other side which says what would we
:09:51. > :09:55.like it all to be like? I think it is that clash which will be
:09:56. > :09:59.interesting over the election. People's whether from thinking, do
:10:00. > :10:03.we need to just grasp these nettles and say we have to do something
:10:04. > :10:08.about social care, even if we don't like what is proposed? Or are they
:10:09. > :10:18.going to say, we are still going to carry on thinking perhaps we can
:10:19. > :10:21.afford everything. The week ahead, the SNP, do the need to come out
:10:22. > :10:26.with anything fresh and interesting and different in the manifesto? Or
:10:27. > :10:34.given their dominance in Scotland, do they need to just say keep going?
:10:35. > :10:38.Repetition. Vote for the SNP for a strong voice for Scotland in
:10:39. > :10:46.Westminster. I think some of the arguments they are advancing lack
:10:47. > :10:55.the traction of 2015 because any prospect of a hung parliament seems
:10:56. > :11:01.to be gone. Questions on independence will still dominate.
:11:02. > :11:05.The arithmetic doesn't really give them much purchase at Westminster.
:11:06. > :11:09.Wiki getting ignored by the Conservatives already. I don't see
:11:10. > :11:14.by the Conservatives would pay attention to them next time. If you
:11:15. > :11:19.were the SNP, what would you do? They did so well last time, the risk
:11:20. > :11:27.is he might not do as well. They could do better. Steady as she goes?
:11:28. > :11:34.I would try and refresh the message of this fear society. We have been
:11:35. > :11:39.in power for here -- in power here for ten years. Some of the chickens
:11:40. > :11:45.are coming home to roost, why haven't they got much better as you
:11:46. > :11:49.promised? If the SNP gave up this notion of Independence, which I know
:11:50. > :11:54.they are never going to, but as he just said they were fighting for a
:11:55. > :11:59.stronger voice for all Scots, I think they would clean up. That is
:12:00. > :12:03.what people want. People are frightened that an SNP victory will
:12:04. > :12:08.give them something they don't want. Write them a little memo, dear SNP,
:12:09. > :12:15.give up independence and you will be fine. The Aberdeen councillors. You
:12:16. > :12:20.couldn't make this up. I feel slightly sorry for Kezia Dugdale
:12:21. > :12:28.Emma Way. And if she did Anne Panter she didn't. If Labour had sided with
:12:29. > :12:36.the Conservatives, the SNP would say vote Labour, get Tory. It was never
:12:37. > :12:41.going to be an elegant solution to this dilemma. What has come out has
:12:42. > :12:48.been very ungainly situation. Why not just say, we are not having
:12:49. > :12:55.deals with the Tories. They're assistant to each particular deal.
:12:56. > :13:00.This has been politics at its very worst. Local politics which is seen
:13:01. > :13:04.as came more about politics than the people it is supposed to represent.
:13:05. > :13:09.I think it has been shameful for the Labour Party and I think the
:13:10. > :13:21.previous interview with Mr Gordon was such a mess. Mr Rowley. Excuse
:13:22. > :13:27.me. It must be my age. I think that has been a very bad mark for
:13:28. > :13:29.politics in general. Thank you very much. We will have to leave it
:13:30. > :13:31.there. I'll be back at the
:13:32. > :13:35.same time next week. As voters prepare to go to the polls
:13:36. > :13:39.to choose who represents them and who will run the country,
:13:40. > :13:42.the Conservative Party leader, Theresa May, joins me
:13:43. > :13:47.for The Andrew Neil Interviews.