21/05/2017 Sunday Politics Scotland

It's Sunday Morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.

Labour attacks Conservative plans for social care and to means-test

So can Jeremy Corbyn eat into the Tory lead

Theresa May says her party's manifesto is all about fairness.

We'll be speaking to a Conservative cabinet minister about the plans.

The polls have always shown healthy leads for the Conservatives.

But, now we've seen the manifestos, is Labour narrowing the gap?

And on Sunday Politics Scotland: With two and a half weeks to go

to the general election, I'll be asking the SNP's deputy

leader Angus Robertson for an assessment of his party's

And with me - as always - the best and the brightest political

panel in the business: Sam Coates, Isabel Oakeshott

and Steve Richards - they'll be tweeting throughout

the programme, and you can get involved by using

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says pensioners will be up to ?330 a year

worse off under plans outlined in the Conservative manifesto.

The Work Pensions Secretary Damian Green has said his party will not

rethink their plans to fund social care in England. Under the plans in

the Conservative manifesto, nobody with assets of less than ?100,000,

would have to pay for care. Labour has attacked the proposal, and John

McDonnell, Labour's Shadow Chancellor, said this morning that

there needs to be more cross-party consensus.

That's why we supported Dilnot, but we also supported

Because we've got to have something sustainable over generations,

so that's why we've said to the Conservative Party,

Let's go back to that cross-party approach that actually

I just feel we've all been let down by what's come

Sam, is Labour beginning to get their argument across? What we had

last week was bluntly what felt like not very Lynton Crosby approved

Conservative manifesto. What I mean by that is that it looks like there

are things that will cause political difficulties for the party over this

campaign. I've been talking to MPs and ministers who acknowledge that

the social care plan is coming up on the doorstep. It has cut through

very quickly, and it is worrying and deterring some voters. Not just

pensioners, that people who are looking to inherit in the future.

They are all asking how much they could lose that they wouldn't have

lost before. A difficult question for the party to answer, given that

they don't want to give too much away now. Was this a mistake, or a

sign of the Conservatives' confidence? It has the hallmarks of

something that has been cobbled together in a very unnaturally short

time frame for putting a manifesto together. We have had mixed messages

from the Tory MPs who have been out on the airwaves this morning as to

whether they will consult on it whether it is just a starting point.

That said, there is still three weeks to go, and most of the Tory

party this morning feel this is a little light turbulence rather than

anything that leaves the destination of victory in doubt. It it flips the

normal politics. The Tories are going to make people who have a

reasonable amount of assets pay for their social care. What is wrong

with that? First, total credit for them for not pretending that all

this can be done by magic, which is what normally happens in an

election. The party will say, we will review this for the 95th time

in the following Parliament, so they have no mandate to do anything and

so do not do anything. It is courageous to do it. It is

electorally risky, for the reasons that you suggest, that they pass the

target their own natural supporter. And there is a sense that this is

rushed through, in the frenzy to get it done in time. I think the ending

of the pooling of risk and putting the entire burden on in inverted

commas the victim, because you cannot insure Fritz, is against the

spirit of a lot of the rest of the manifesto, and will give them huge

problems if they try to implement it in the next Parliament. Let's have a

look at the polls. Nearly five weeks ago, on Tuesday the 18th of April,

Theresa May called the election. At that point, this was the median

average of the recent polls. The Conservatives had an 18 point lead

over Labour on 25%. Ukip and the Liberal Democrats were both on 18%.

A draft of Labour's manifesto was leaked to the press. In the

intervening weeks, support for the Conservatives and Labour had

increased, that it had decreased for the Lib Dems and Ukip. Last Tuesday

came the launch of the official Labour manifesto. By that time,

Labour support had gone up by another 2%. The Lib Dems and Ukip

had slipped back slightly. Later in the week came the manifestos from

the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. This morning, for more polls. This

is how the parties currently stand on average. Labour are now on 34%,

up 4% since the launch of their manifesto. The Conservatives are

down two points since last Tuesday. Ukip and the Lib Dems are both

unchanged on 8% and 5%. You can find this poll tracker on the BBC

website, see how it was calculated, and see the results of national

polls over the last two years. So Isabel, is this the Tories' wobbly

weekend or the start of the narrowing? This is still an

extremely healthy lead for the Tories. At the start of this

campaign, most commentators expected to things to happen. First, the Lib

Dems would have a significant surge. That hasn't happened. Second, Labour

would crash and plummet. Instead they are in the health of the low

30s. I wonder if that tells you something about the tribal nature of

the Labour vote, and the continuing problems with the Tory brand. I

would say that a lot of Tory MPs wouldn't be too unhappy if Labour's

result isn't quite as bad as has been anticipated. They don't want

Corbyn to go anywhere. If the latest polls were to be the result on June

the 8th, Mr Corbyn may not be in a rush to go anywhere. I still think

it depends on the number of seats. If there is a landslide win, I

think, one way or another, he will not stay. If it is much narrower, he

has grounds for arguing he has done better than anticipated. The polls

are very interesting. People compare this with 83. In 83, the Tory lead

widened consistently throughout the campaign. There was the SDP -

Liberal Alliance doing well in the polls. Here, the Lib Dems don't seem

to be doing that. So the parallels with 83 don't really stack up. But

let's see what happens. Still early days for the a lot of people are

saying this is the result of the social care policy. We don't really

know that. How do you beat them? In the last week or so, there's been

the decision by some to hold their nose and vote Labour, who haven't

done so before. Probably the biggest thing in this election is how the

Right has reunited behind Theresa May. That figure for Ukip is

incredibly small. She has brought those Ukip voters behind her, and

that could be the decisive factor in many seats, rather than the Labour

share of the boat picking up a bit or down a bit, depending on how

turbulent the Tory manifesto makes it. Thank you for that.

We've finally got our hands on the manifestos of the two main

parties and, for once, voters can hardly complain that

So, just how big is the choice on offer to the public?

Since the Liberal Democrats and SNP have ruled out

coalitions after June 8th, Adam Fleming compares the Labour

Welcome to the BBC's election centre.

Four minutes from now, when Big Ben strikes 10.00,

we can legally reveal the contents of this, our exit poll.

18 days to go, and the BBC's election night studio

This is where David Dimbleby will sit, although there is no chair yet.

The parties' policies are now the finished product.

In Bradford, Jeremy Corbyn vowed a bigger state,

the end of austerity, no more tuition fees.

The Tory campaign, by contrast, is built on one word - fear.

Down the road in Halifax, Theresa May kept a promise to get

immigration down to the tens of thousands, and talked

of leadership and tough choices in uncertain times.

Strengthen my hand as I fight for Britain, and stand with me

And, with confidence in ourselves and a unity

of purpose in our country, let us go forward together.

Let's look at the Labour and Conservative

On tax, Labour would introduce a 50p rate for top earners.

The Conservatives ditched their triple lock, giving them

freedom to put up income tax and national insurance,

although they want to keep the overall tax burden the same.

Labour offered a major overhaul of the country's wiring,

with a pledge to renationalise infrastructure, like power,

The Conservatives said that would cost a fortune,

but provided few details for the cost of their policies.

Labour have simply become a shambles, and, as yesterday's

manifesto showed, their numbers simply do not add up.

What have they got planned for health and social care?

The Conservatives offered more cash for the NHS,

reaching an extra ?8 billion a year by the end of the parliament.

Labour promised an extra ?30 billion over the course of the same period,

plus free hospital parking and more pay for staff.

The Conservatives would increase the value of assets you could

protect from the cost of social care to ?100,000, but your home would be

added to the assessment of your wealth,

There was a focus on one group of voters in particular

Labour would keep the triple lock, which guarantees that pensions go up

The Tories would keep the increase in line

with inflation or earnings, a double lock.

The Conservatives would end of winter fuel payments

for the richest, although we don't know exactly who that would be,

This is a savage attack on vulnerable pensioners,

particularly those who are just about managing.

It is disgraceful, and we are calling upon the Conservative Party

When it comes to leaving the European Union, Labour say

they'd sweep away the government's negotiating strategy,

secure a better deal and straightaway guaranteed the rights

The Tories say a big majority would remove political uncertainty

Jeremy Vine's due here in two and a half weeks.

I'm joined now by David Gauke, who is Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Welcome back to the programme. The Tories once promised a cap on social

care costs. Why have you abandoned that? We've looked at it, and there

are couple of proposals with the Dilnot proposal. Much of the benefit

would go to those inheriting larger estates. The second point was it was

hoped that a cap would stimulate the larger insurance products that would

fill the gap, but there is no sign that those products are emerging.

Without a cap, you will not get one. We have come forward with a new

proposal which we think is fairer, provide more money for social care,

which is very important and is one of the big issues we face as a

country. It is right that we face those big issues. Social care is

one, getting a good Brexit deal is another. This demonstrates that

Theresa May has an ambition to lead a government that addresses those

big long-term issues. Looking at social care. If you have assets,

including your home, of over ?100,000, you have to pay for all

your social care costs. Is that fair? It is right that for the

services that are provided to you, that that is paid out of your

assets, subject to two really important qualifications. First, you

shouldn't have your entire estate wiped out. At the moment, if you are

in residential care, it can be wiped out ?223,000. If you are in

domiciliary care, it can be out to ?23,000, plus you're domiciliary.

Nobody should be forced to sell their house in their lifetime if

they or their spouse needs long-term care. Again, we have protected that

in the proposals we set out. But the state will basically take a

chunk of your house when you die and they sell. In an essence it is a

stealth inheritance tax on everything above ?100,000. But we

have those two important protections. I am including that. It

is a stealth inheritance tax. We have to face up to the fact that

there are significant costs that we face as a country in terms of health

and social careful. Traditionally, politicians don't address those

issues, particularly during election campaigns. I think it is too Theresa

May's credit that we are being straightforward with the British

people and saying that we face this long-term challenge. Our manifesto

was about the big challenges that we face, one of which was

intergenerational fairness and one of which was delivering a strong

economy and making sure that we can do that. But in the end, someone is

going to have to pay for this. It is going to have to be a balance

between the general taxpayer and those receiving the services. We

think we have struck the right balance with this proposal. But it

is entirely on the individual. People watching this programme, if

they have a fair amount of assets, not massive, including the home,

they will need to pay for everything themselves until their assets are

reduced to ?100,000. It is not a balance, you're putting everything

on the original two individual. At the moment, for those in residential

care, they have to pay everything until 20 3000. -- everything on the

individual. But now they will face more. Those in individual care are

seeing their protection going up by four times as much, so that is

eliminating unfairness. Why should those in residential care be in a

worse position than those receiving domiciliary care? But as I say, that

money has to come from somewhere and we are sitting at a proper plan for

it. While also made the point that we are more likely to be able to

have a properly functioning social care market if we have a strong

economy, and to have a strong economy we need to deliver a good

deal on Brexit and I think Theresa May is capable of doing that. You

have said that before. But if you have a heart attack in old age, the

NHS will take care of you. If you have dementia, you now have to pay

for the care of yourself. Is that they are? It is already the case

that if you have long-term care costs come up as I say, if you are

in residential care you pay for all of it until the last ?23,000, but if

you are in domiciliary care, excluding your housing assets, but

all of your other assets get used up until you are down to ?23,000 a

year. And I think it is right at this point that a party that aspires

to run this country for the long-term, to address the long-term

challenges we have is a country, for us to be clear that we need to

deliver this. Because if it is not paid for it this way, if it goes and

falls on the general taxpayer, the people who feel hard pressed by the

amount of income tax and VAT they pay, frankly we have to say to them,

those taxes will go up if we do not address it. But they might go up

anyway. The average house price in your part of the country is just shy

of ?430,000, so if you told your own constituents that they might have to

spend ?300,000 of their assets on social care before the state steps

in to help...? As I said earlier, nobody will be forced to pay during

their lifetime. Nobody will be forced to sell their houses. We are

providing that protection because of the third premium. Which makes it a

kind of death tax, doesn't it? Which is what you use to rail against.

What it is people paying for the services they have paid out of their

assets. But with that very important protection that nobody is going to

be wiped out in the way that has happened up until now, down to the

last three years. But when Labour propose this, George Osborne called

it a death tax and you are now proposing a stealth death tax

inheritance tax. Labour's proposals were very different. It is the same

effect. Labour's were hitting everyone with an inheritance tax. We

are saying that there are -- that there is a state contribution but

the public receiving the services will have to pay for it out of

assets, which have grown substantially. And which they might

now lose to social care. But I would say that people in Hertfordshire pay

a lot in income tracks, national insurance and VAT, and this is my

bet is going to have to come from somewhere. Well, they are now going

to pay a lot of tax and pay for social care. Turning to immigration,

you promised to get net migration down to 100,020 ten. You failed. You

promised again in 2015 and you are feeling again. Why should voters

trust you a third time? It is very clear that only the Conservative

Party has an ambition to control immigration and to bring it down. An

ambition you have failed to deliver. There are, of course, factors that

come into play. For example a couple of years ago we were going through a

period when the UK was creating huge numbers of jobs but none of our

European neighbours were doing anything like it. Not surprisingly,

that feeds through into the immigration numbers that we see. But

it is right that we have that ambition because I do not believe it

is sustainable to have hundreds of thousands net migration, you're

after year after year, and only Theresa May of the Conservative

Party is willing to address that. It has gone from being a target to an

ambition, and I am pretty sure in a couple of years it will become an

untimed aspiration. Is net migration now higher or lower than when you

came to power in 2010? I think it is higher at the moment. Let's look at

the figures. And there they are. You are right, it is higher, so after

six years in power, promising to get it down to 100,000, it is higher. So

if that is an ambition and you have not succeeded. We have to accept

that there are a number of factors. It continues to be the case that the

UK economy is growing and creating a lot of jobs, which is undoubtedly

drawing people. But you made the promise on the basis that would not

happen? We are certainly outperforming other countries in a

way that we could not have predicted in 2010. That is one of the factors.

But if you look at a lot of the steps that we have taken over the

course of the last seven years, dealing with bogus students, for

example, tightening up a lot of the rules. You can say all that but it

has made no difference to the headline figure. Clearly it would

have gone up by much more and we not taken the steps. But as I say, we

cannot for ever, it seems to me, have net migration numbers in the

hundreds of thousands. If we get that good Brexit deal, one of the

things we can do is tighten up in terms of access here. You say that

but you have always had control of non-EU migration. You cannot blame

the EU for that. You control immigration from outside the EU.

Have you ever managed to get even that below 100,000? Well, no doubt

you will present the numbers now. You haven't. You have got down a bit

from 2010, I will give you that, but even non-EU migration is still a lot

more than 100000 and that is the thing you control. It is 164,000 on

the latest figures. There is no point in saying to the voters that

when we get control of the EU migration you will get it down when

the bit you have control over, you have failed to get that down into

the tens of thousands. The general trend has gone up. Non-EU migration

we have brought down over the last few years. Not by much, not by

anywhere near your 100,000 target. But we clearly have more tools

available to us, following Brexit. At this rate it will be around 2030

before you get non-EU migration down to 100,000. We clearly have more

tools available to us and I return to the point I made. In the last six

or seven years, particularly the last four or five, we have seen the

UK jobs market growing substantially. It is extraordinary

how many more jobs we have. So you'll only promised the migration

target because you did not think you were going to run the economy well?

That is what you are telling me. I don't think anyone expected us to

create quite a number of jobs that we have done over the last six or

seven years. At the time when other European countries have not been.

George Osborne says your target is economically illiterate. I disagree

with George on that. He is my old boss but I disagree with him on that

point. And the reason I say that is looking at the economics and the

wider social impact, I don't think it is sustainable for us to have

hundreds of thousands, year after year after year. Let me ask you one

other thing because you are the chief secretary. Your promising that

spending on health will be ?8 billion higher in five use time than

it is now. How do you pay for that? From a strong economy, two years ago

we had a similar conversation because at that point we said that

we would increase spending by ?8 billion. And we are more than on

track to deliver it, because it is a priority area for us. Where will the

money come from? It will be a priority area for us. We will find

the money. So you have not been able to show us a revenue line where this

?8 billion will come from. We have a record of making promises to spend

more on the NHS and delivering. One thing I would say is that the only

way you can spend more money on the NHS is if you have a strong economy,

and the biggest risk... But that is true of anything. I am trying to

find out where the ?8 billion come from, where will it come from? Know

you were saying that perhaps you might increase taxes, ticking off

the lock, so people are right to be suspicious. But you will not tell us

where the ?8 billion will come from. Andrew, a strong economy is key to

delivering more NHS money. That does not tell us where the money is

coming from. The biggest risk to a strong economy would be a bad

Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn would deliver. And we have a record of

putting more money into the NHS. I think that past performance we can

take forward. Thank you for joining us.

So, the Conservatives have been taking a bit of flak

But Conservative big guns have been out and about this morning taking

Here's Boris Johnson on ITV's Peston programme earlier today:

What we're trying to do is to address what I think

everybody, all serious demographers acknowledge will be the massive

problem of the cost of social care long-term.

This is a responsible, grown-up, conservative approach,

trying to deal with a long-term problem in a way that is equitable,

allows people to pass on a very substantial sum,

still, to their kids, and takes away the fear

Joining me now from Liverpool is Labour's Shadow Chief Secretary

Petered out, welcome to the programme. Let's start with social

care. The Tories are saying that if you have ?100,000 or more in assets,

you should pay for your own social care. What is wrong with that? Well,

I think the issue at the end of the day is the question of fairness. Is

it fair? And what we're trying to do is to get to a situation where we

have, for example, the Dilnot report, which identified that you

actually have cap on your spending on social care. We are trying to get

to a position where it is a reasonable and fair approach to

expenditure. But you will know that a lot of people, particularly in the

south of country, London and the south-east, and the adjacent areas

around it, they have benefited from huge house price inflation. They

have seen their homes go up in value, if and when they sell, they

are not taxed on that increase. Why should these people not pay for

their own social care if they have the assets to do so? They will be

paying for some of their social care but you cannot take social care and

health care separately. It has to be an integrated approach. So for

example if you do have dementia, you're more likely to be in an

elderly person's home for longer and you most probably have been in care

for a longer period of time. On the other hand, you might have, if you

have had a stroke, there may be continuing care needs paid for by

the NHS. So at the end of the date it is trying to get a reasonable

balance and just to pluck a figure of ?100,000 out of thin air is not

sensible. You will have heard me say about David Gold that the house

prices in his area, about 450,000 or so, not quite that, and that people

may have to spend quite a lot of that on social care to get down to

?100,000. But in your area, the average house price is only

?149,000, so your people would not have to pay anything like as much

before they hit the ?100,000 minimum. I hesitate to say that but

is that not almost a socialist approach to social care that if you

are in the affluent Home Counties with a big asset, you pay more, and

if you are in an area that is not so affluent and your house is not worth

very much, you pay a lot less. What is wrong with that principle? I

think the problem I am trying to get to is this issue about equity across

the piece. At the end of the day, what we want is a system whereby it

is capped at a particular level, and the Dilnot report, after much

examination, said we should have a cap on care costs at ?72,000. The

Conservatives decided to ditch that and come up with another policy

which by all accounts seems to be even more Draconian. At the end of

the day it is trying to get social care and an NHS care in a much more

fluid way. We had offered the Conservatives to have a bipartisan

approach to this. David just said that this is a long term. You do not

pick a figure out of thin air and use that as a long-term strategy.

The Conservatives are now saying they will increase health spending

over the next five years in real terms. You will increase health

spending. In what way is your approach to health spending better

than the Tories' now? We are contributing an extra 7.2 billion to

the NHS and social care over the next few years. But you just don't

put money into the NHS or social care. It has to be an integrated

approach to social and health care. What we've got is just more of the

same. What we don't want to do is just say, we ring-fenced an out for

here or there. What you have to do is try to get that... Let me ask you

again. In terms of the amount of resource that is going to be devoted

in the next five years, and resource does matter for the NHS, in what way

are your plans different now from the Conservative plans? The key is

how you use that resource. By just putting money in, you've got to say,

if we are going to put that money on, how do we use it? As somebody

who has worked in social care for 40 years, you have to have a different

approach to how you use that money. The money we are putting in, 7.7,

may be similar in cash terms to what the Tories claim they are putting

in, but it's not how much you put in per se, it is how you use it. You

are going to get rid of car parking charges in hospital, and you are

going to increase pay by taking the cap on pay off. So it doesn't

necessarily follow that the money, under your way of doing it, will

follow the front line. What you need in the NHS is a system that is

capable of dealing with the patience you have. What we have now is on at

five Asian of the NHS. Staff leaving, not being paid properly. So

pay and the NHS go hand in hand. Let's move onto another area of

policy where there is some confusion. Who speaks for the Labour

Party on nuclear weapons? Is it Emily Thornbury, or Nia Griffith,

defence spokesperson? The Labour manifesto. It is clear. We are

committed to the nuclear deterrent, and that is the definitive... Is it?

Emily Thornbury said that Trident could be scrapped in the defence

review you would have immediately after taking power. On LBC on Friday

night. She didn't, actually. I listened to that. What she actually

said is, as part of a Labour government coming in, a new

government, there is always a defence review. But not the concept

of Trident in its substance. She said there would be a review in

terms of, and this is in our manifesto. When you reduce

something, you review how it is operated. The review could scrap

Trident. It won't scrap Trident. The review is in the context of how you

protect it from cyber attacks. This will issue was seized upon that she

was saying that we would have another review of Trident or Labour

would ditch it. That is nonsense. You will have seen some reports that

MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn in the early 90s because of his

links to Irish republicanism. This has caused some people, his links to

the IRA and Sinn Fein, it has caused some concern. Could you just listen

to this clip and react. Do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn

all bombing. But do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn what was done

with the British Army as well as both sides as well. What happened in

Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well. Do you distinguish between

state forces, what the British Army did and the IRA? Well, in a sense,

the treatment of IRA prisoners which made them into virtual political

prisoners suggested that the British government and the state saw some

kind of almost equivalent in it. My point is that the whole violence if

you was terrible, was appalling, and came out of a process that had been

allowed to fester in Northern Ireland for a very long time. That

was from about two years ago. Can you explain why the Leader of the

Labour Party, Her Majesty 's opposition, the man who would be our

next Prime Minister, finds it so hard to condemn IRA arming? I think

it has to be within the context that Jeremy Corbyn for many years trying

to move the peace protest... Process along. So why wouldn't you condemn

IRA bombing? Again, that was an issue, a traumatic event in Irish -

British relations that went on for 30 years. It is a complicated

matter. Bombing is not that complicated. If you are a man of

peace, surely you would condemn the bomb and the bullet? Let me say

this, I condemn the bomb and the bullet. Why can't your leader? You

would have to ask Jeremy Corbyn, but that is in the context of what he

was trying to do over a 25 year period to move the priest process

along. Thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. Good morning and welcome

to Sunday Politics Scotland. to the growing pile of manifestos,

I'll ask the party's deputy leader, Angus Robertson, whether his party

has any fresh ideas. And whether they're really committed

to another independence referendum. And a little local difficulty

or a growing headache? We'll talk to Scottish Labour's

Deputy Leader about why all Aberdeen's Labour councillors

have been suspended from the party. Now, the SNP were the overwhelmingly

dominant party in Scotland at the last general election -

and they'll be hoping things But they are facing challenges -

over their track record in government and over

their plans to hold another Well, joining me now is the SNP's

Deputy Leader, Angus Robertson. We are tonight different positions

on an independence referendum from Nicola Sturgeon this week. In an

interview with Gary Robison, she said it was a question of if not

when. Yesterday, she'd said when not death. Are you committed to holding

a referendum on independence? Well, firstly that is a

mischaracterisation of what the First Minister said. The future of

Scotland should lie in Scotland's Hans. I think it is important we put

on record this is an issue that was already determined in the last

Scottish Parliament election. The party that went to the country with

a choice, the SNP had this in their manifesto. The opposing parties lost

the election. The public has already given a mandate to the Scottish

Government. Since then, the Scottish Parliament has endorsed that

position. It is... Of course there will be a referendum because the

people have determined we need a choice on our future. We should

never lose sight of the fact that everybody else in Europe is going to

have a say about our future. If the other 27 member states are going to

be able to determine the future of Scotland in Europe, it seems

unimaginable that we in this country cannot decide on our future. I

respect the democratic institutions of Scotland. It is a shame the

Tories do not appear to. Just to be clear, you have already asked for a

section 30 order which would allow the Scottish Parliament to organise

another referendum. But you don't just want the power to organise one

if you decide to do it, you actually want to hold one some time in late

2018 or 2019? Yes. I should apologise to the viewers as there is

a dreadful delay in the satellite link. Which is why you appear not to

be answering the questions, but... I am apologising

to the viewers for the delay on the satellite link. The good news is

from where I am standing, I don't have a delay. If the Conservatives

win this election, they have said they will not be another referendum

unless firstly there the argue Brexit talks should be finished.

They have now added another condition that there should be

popular support for it. What options do you have to do anything about it?

It is true that the Tories are ahead in England. That is a strong reason

for everyone in Scotland to ensure there is a strong voice representing

Scotland's interests and Westminster. I haven't seen a single

opinion poll that suggests Scotland will win in Scotland. If the people

in Scotland determine they want SNP representatives at Westminster, we

will all have been sent there to stand up for the rights of the

Scottish Parliament, of the Scottish Government, and the mandate the

people of Scotland gave in the last Scottish election. Or we remain a

situation where the Tories are seeing the people of Scotland will

not be able to determine their own future because of what an opinion

poll? The last time I looked, in normal democracies, if political

parties win elections and there men if fast stock has been endorsed by

the people, that is going to be respected. I think the people of

Scotland and their views on the subject and everything else should

be respected. Which is why I think it is unimaginable if there is a UK

Tory party victory over the rest of the UK but the SNP is returned in

Scotland, they can continuously turned their backs on the

democratically expressed wishes of the people of this part of the

United Kingdom. If they do do what they are saying they will do, which

is simply say no for a period which could go 145, six, seven, eight

years, you say it is unimaginable, but if that is what they do, is

there anything realistically other than complaining that you can do?

The first thing we have to make sure is that Scotland's constituencies

represented by SNP parliamentarians who will stand up for Scotland's

interests. As opposed to Scottish Tories who want. Or in the case of

this constituency, won't even turn up to important debate because they

are refereeing football matches. We might hear brazen arrogance from

Tories down south suggesting they're just going to discount the views of

people in Scotland, at some point, the penny is going to drop that it

is inconsistent to say that the union matters so much that we

respect the views of people right across the nations and regions of

these islands, but to act in the diametrically opposed away and just

ignore the democratic will of people in Scotland or anywhere else, I

think is unsustainable for Unionism. We don't want to refer to

constituencies. That is an interest of fairness. It is not fair to talk

about particular constituencies unless we have everyone standing in

that constituency. If in this election, you will be hoping you do

as well as last time, but should the SNP even lose one or two seats, your

political opponents will save you have less than 50% of the vote, that

means that over 50% of people in Scotland voted for parties which are

against having a referendum. What would you reply to that? It is a

very odd understanding of democracy. The last time I looked, the

important thing that happened in elections is who wins. At the

moment, it looks like the largest single group of voters in Scotland

won't the XMP to represent them. You're suggesting that because a

party that has almost every seat in the country loses one and it loses

legitimacy. I cannot believe in the 21st century that is a common

understanding of how democracy works. The SNP represents almost

every single one of the seats in Scotland. It has been suggested now

that if we were to lose one or two seats, somehow we have lost all

legitimacy. The mandate we have been given by the electorate of Scotland

somehow does not count. It is as a strange view of democracy and

society. Every vote counts equally. Is the largest single number of

people in Scotland vote SNP, political parties should respect

that. Either simply suggesting what your political opponents would say.

You have suggested that if you are the largest party in Scotland, you

want some sort of seat in the Brexit negotiations. What is it you want,

and what have the British government said? Viewers will remember the

Scottish Government worked very hard to try and get a compromise

agreement with the UK Government, to try to get a joint approach and work

out whether we could find a differentiate arrangement to satisfy

different parts of the UK. The majority of people in Scotland voted

to remain. We wanted to work with the UK Government to try to deliver

that. For whatever reason, Theresa May and colleagues have decided they

can ignore that. We're suggesting that if people in Scotland want

Scotland's interests to be taken seriously, it would be a good thing

for the Scottish Government to be directly represented in building the

UK's case in relation to Brexit negotiations. It is a democratic

point. If you want Scotland to have a strong voice to influence

negotiations and make sure we don't have the hard chaotic damaging

Brexit the UK Government is heading towards, one has to have as many SNP

parliamentarians as possible. Is not, were not going to see the

return of all fisheries powers, agriculture powers that of support

we require in rural communities. It is only by having a direct Scottish

Government and SNP voice. In many other European countries, they have

to take on board the views of different parts of the country. If

that is possible elsewhere, it should be possible in the UK. It

shouldn't beyond the wit of imagination to incorporate different

prowl these across the English regions and other nations. Now,

social care. Whatever you think of the details of the system, in the

Conservative manifesto, it says people can reserve ?100,000 of their

assets, even if they have to sell their homes. If you have to sell

your house in Scotland, as I understand it, you're on the

protected up to ?26,000. Will you have proposals to give equivalent

protection up to ?100,000 for people here who might be worried that

should they have dementia it will have to sell their home and to their

children who might worry that they're in inheritance will

effectively disappear, as can happen at the moment? I think it is

important to stress we are in a different situation in Scotland and

so we already have free care for the elderly and that is something that

one doesn't have in England. We have devolved powers. I can't give a

detailed preview of every aspect of the SNP manifesto which is being

launched this week. But I'm trying to make the point that we have

different policy approaches in Scotland, thank goodness, on this.

We have free personal care. In England, as part of an

intergenerational debate, the Tories seem to be wanting to pull away any

support for older people in our communities. There are elements

which will impact Scotland. For example, the triple lock on

pensions. They have confirmed they will give up on that. The SNP will

support the triple lock. All other questions, you will have to wait for

the manifesto launch. For many, who are elderly, the issue

of whether it is a double lock or of the lot is not as that important as

the issue of whether they have to sell the house. The point is you

cannot seem to guarantee what Theresa May can guarantee. I am sure

you are not want as here monger amongst older viewers. You and I

would want to stress that in Scotland we have free personal care,

that means one does not need to sell is one house to get that sort of

support. The Scottish Government is committed to it, you already get it.

Wells to retaining free personal care, and the triple lock, we are

saying the Tories represent a range of policy and oppose all switch will

it especially poorer pensioners and away that is an except the ball. The

SNP are standing up for pensioners, if you want that support, people

will have to support SNP in the election. We are running out of

time, there is a lot of controversy about the rape close. I using that

Scotland will not implement the limiting of tax credit to children

who fall under the rape close in the first place? Forgive me again and

thank you for the opportunity to preview the manifesto but I am not

in a position to go into the details of the manifesto. The SNP and my

colleagues at Westminster have work tirelessly to expose what is utterly

unacceptable way to treat people who have gone through the violation of

rape. The SNP will do everything we can to change that situation at

Westminster, because was a decision there that has brought this about.

Unfortunately Tories standing in every single constituency in

Scotland support the rape close. The SNP do not. We will have to leave it

at that. Thank you very much for joining us with a view of the

bridge. Now, in the week before the general

election, BBC Scotland will be hosting a series of 'Ask

the Leader' TV debates - a different leader each night

- chaired by Glenn Campbell If you'd like to take part,

then you can apply online by visiting our BBC News

and Reporting Scotland websites. It's been a week of frantic

manoeuvring across Scotland's councils, as political parties

try to form working administrations. After typically spending the months

before the council elections decrying the record of other

Parties, you won't be surprised to hear that many of those same

politicians have now found that they can, indeed,

work with each other. In Aberdeen though, Labour

members who got together with the Conservatives have been

left out in the cold, After this month's local elections,

the road ahead for a Scotland's councils is looking Keeler. In

Glasgow the SNP scored a significant victory. Elsewhere the scores are

confused and that could lead to political roadblocks. When that

happens, marriages of political convenience can look very

attractive. But when Labour councillors decided to just that in

Aberdeen, forming a college in with the Conservatives and independents

and excusing the SNP, they were smacked down by their party

leadership. When the council is Duggan, they were suspended from the

party. Your reaction from the suspension at the Labour Party. I am

disappointed because I have been a member of the Labour Party a long

time. We took the decision we wanted to go into a coalition because we

felt it was the right decision for the people of Aberdeen. We have

anti-austerities means within the programme that will be brought

forward. In Aberdeen show the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats

also came together. The new deputy leader says unions like this can

bear fruit for voters. Aberdeenshire is a very good counsel. It has a

very good reputation across scale wind and across Aberdeenshire it has

been a good and effective counsel. I would not say despite of coalition

but because of coalition. Because we have worked together we have enabled

to park national politics at the door and focus on what is best for

Aberdeenshire. Labour's Aberdeen trouble has provided its... When a

party goes into election, it states very clearly what we will do. The

SNP said it would not do deals with the Tories. People knew what they

were voting for. The difference in Aberdeen, they thought they were

voting for Labour and ended up getting a towering council. I do not

think that is representative of what people would have wanted full top

the Scottish Conservatives say that in trying to scupper the Aberdeen

deal, the leader has shown poor judgment. Kezia Dugdale has made it

clear that she now pretends to be a pro UK party and wants to protect

the union, she has made the wrong choice and judgment that. It is

clear she cannot be trusted with the union. Labour has forbidden in as

those in West Lothian with doing a deal with conservatives there. And

with negotiations to form coalitions elsewhere, they will continue next

week. If they want a happy ending, they will have to find a way to live

together for the sake of the voters. Well, joining me now to discuss some

of the points raised there is Scottish Labour's Deputy Leader,

Alex Rowley. Barney Crockett, who is the new

Provincetown of Aberdeen and is Labour, he said a couple of days ago

he was confident with this bat he is having with the Labour Party, would

soon be over and he would be reinstated as a full member of the

party. Will he? If the Labour councillors, former Labour

councillors and Aberdeen withdraw from the deal that did not have

agreement with the Scottish executive committee, then yes he

would be reinstated. But if they stay as part of the administration,

Norway? No. There is a process that will have to be undertaken. The rule

book states that when a council, a Labour council want to enter in a

coalition, they have to give the agreement of the Scottish is active

committee. In the case of Aberdeen, they do not have that agreement from

the proposal they put forward. If they do not withdraw from the

administration, there is no sign they will withdraw, they will be

expelled from the Labour Party's they will continue with the

suspension. Then there will be an investigation. A decision will be

taken. The argument was that they should not go into this

administration with the Conservatives because this would

implement austerity in some way. Can you tell us what specifically was

the agreed to that made the Scottish executive at the Labour Party

rejected? Each group is setting out what the proposal is. Specific areas

that the Scottish executive committee have highlighted is

firstly that Labour would make a difference. What is the difference

Labour would be making by entering into a coalition. What would they be

delivering? The policy agenda has to be first. It cannot just be about...

Secondly, each group was asked to set out very clearly how they would

oppose austerity, how the words in the local area mitigate austerity.

In the case of Aberdeen when the proposal was brought forward to the

executive, there were concerns that that was not clear how they would

deal with and fight against austerity. Secondly in Aberdeen,

there was also concerned because they were not, the group coming

together would not form a majority administration in the council. That

was a concern as well. Other groups who have brought forward proposals

didn't necessarily get them through the first time of bringing forward.

They were asked to go back and have a look at key areas that were of

concern to the Scottish executive. In Aberdeen, they decided to go

ahead anyway and therefore they are clearly in breach of the rules. In

faith, or in South Ayrshire were Labour has gone into administration

with the Scottish National Party, can you give us some examples of

things, either things that won't happen in these that areas will

happen in Aberdeen, or things that won't happen in Aberdeen that will

happen in these areas? We have 40,000 children more in poverty

today than we did have last year at this time. 260,000 children in

poverty across Scotland. Local authorities are taking the brunt of

that in terms of having to put into services, invest in services and try

about those people, as food banks in Scotland will... What has this got

to do with the differences in these areas? They will expose and attack

the parties who are behind the austerity. What will be different

and Aberdeen? What is different in Fife is that they have set out

clearly how they will oppose austerity and they have set out

clearly as I counsel how they will, that they will fight austerity,

every step of the way. They will do everything to mitigate austerity.

They will not be any cuts and five? The coalition agreement that

designed sets out very clearly how they are going to tackle the worst

impacts of austerity, how they will address poverty. Part of that is to

take the fight to the Tory government. The Tories in Scotland

are in complete denial. What you are saying is completely mysterious, the

difference in areas like Aberdeen where you have deal with the Tories

and in other areas. The Tory party in Scotland are in complete denial

about the impact of their policies. They are in denial about the impact

that their policies are having. You just don't want deals with the

Tories? We will not enter into coalition with parties who are in

complete denial about the impact... Aberdeen came forward with a

coalition agreement that set out very clearly the impact that Tory

policy was having on Aberdeen with a clear commitment to fight that. Then

people would be more comfortable. You say they act as an accelerator

for them. The SNP are failing to use the powers and the Scottish

parliament in the way that they do. Why is it OK to be in a deal with

the SNP? Any coalition agreement with the SNP, those councils will

fight for the investment, they will campaign for investment, so they

will campaign with the Scottish Government, against the Scottish

Government, to get that investment come in. We will stand up to

austerity, stand up to the poverty that is impacting on people in

Scotland. If people are watching this in Aberdeen Association or

five, I think they will be completely mystified as to

impractical terms, what will happen to Aberdeen as to what is different

happening in Fife, other than some rhetoric. Give me some practical

examples. One practical example? We are not satisfied the coalition

proposals being forward from Aberdeen set out clear enough... I

am telling you, they were not satisfied that the proposals that

were brought forward from Aberdeen set out clearly enough how they were

going to deal with austerity and how they were going to take on the party

of austerity in Scotland. This is austerity as a platonic abstract

idea. You cannot give me a single practical example. What is the

difference between Aberdeen and five? They have not set out very

clearly how they intend to challenge, fight that. This has not

happened at by accident. This has happened because of a Tory party in

denial of the human misery it is creating in Scotland. We will have

to leave it there. So, how are the political

skirmishes, the manifesto promises and the myriad photo calls playing

out as far as the voters Professor John Curtice

is as well placed as anyone He joins us now. Labour must be

quite cheered by the polls we have seen today, are are they been

misconstrued? You are certainly right that it looks as though the

Conservative leader --... When she called the election, the

Conservatives were around 16 - 17 points ahead of the Labour Party on

average. The first immediate consequence of calling the election

was a decline in Ukip support, going directly to the Conservatives, such

we were getting polls putting Conservatives 20 points ahead.

Gradually during the chorus over the last two - 2.5 weeks, the Labour

vote has been rising. Until this morning we would have said the

Labour Party has played catch up. They are only 16 or 17 points

behind. That would be enough to give Theresa May a landslide of 100 or

so. We have had for polls this morning. Two can tuck did before the

manifesto launch. To dine afterwards. They have leads ranging

between nine and 13 points. Once the lead get down to that kind of level,

then be again to ask ourselves whether or not Theresa May is

guaranteed to get the landslide she is looking for. It was only as

7-point lead that the Conservatives had last time, that only got Theresa

May a of 12. It gets to the level of 2015, yes Theresa May will still be

the favourite to be Prime Minister, but she may not get the landslide.

What do the polls tend to do in the UK? If they get it wrong, the over

estimate labour. That is something that is in the back of everyone's

made. Was that not corrected? The polls have done their best. But

whether or not they have succeeded, the truth is we will not know until

June nine. Any intelligent person will be aware that there is a

potential uncertainty. The second potential uncertainty, the polls

suggest may be going on, insofar as there is a conservative advance,

that advance may be stronger in the North of England. In Scotland and

the Midlands than it is in the south of England. If that happens, even

the Conservatives have a majority across the country of 12% points,

Theresa May might still get a lying splayed. There is plenty for Labour

to worry about but the truth is an election which in a sense looked

like it was just heading inevitably towards a Tory landslide has just

begun to get a little more interesting.

To do this. Is normally the case that if the gap in the polls narrows

during the campaign, would be normally expected to widen again as

we get nearer to polling day? Or Genaro Pfizer -- or two narrow

further? In 2015, nothing really happened in the polls throughout.

They were persistently wrong, but constantly pointing to a narrow

outcome. We have had two very substantial movements in these

polls. The first is the rise in Conservative support. Now we have

seen Labour support rise by five or six percentage points. These are by

historical standards rather remarkable movements. It suggests we

have an electorate which hasn't quite made its mind up. I don't

think you could look at a historical precedents and say you can forget

this. The rise in labour support has been evident in the polls long

before this weekend and long before the Tory manifesto launch. What were

seen at the moment is not within any margin of error? Looks like it

really is reflecting a change? Even of the polls are wrong in terms of

their levels, one thing we can rely the polls is to identify change. We

have seen the polls persistently and gradually record at least some

increase in Labour support. No guarantee it will continue. No

guarantee the Labour Party have momentum. Are there any Scottish

polls? Kilmichael was a Scottish poll came out on Friday morning to

confirm what we already knew. The SNP are running at around 42%. The

Conservatives just short of 30%. That is certainly enough to mean the

SNP will lose some seats. The Liberal Democrats might pick up a

couple of seats. Edinburgh South, we never know what will happen from any

kind of opinion poll at all. Thank you.

And time now for a look at the Week Ahead.

I'm joined by journalist Katie Grant and Scottish Political Editor

Tom, is a realistic to think this election will suddenly become close

and We would all love it to be like that. Looking at the Conservative

headline at the moment, it is still mid-40s, that is Tony Blair at his

height sort of level. Drama would be nice. I think the polls are showing

a big gap. I think the Conservatives with the

manifesto have tried to tackle some of the major issues in quite a

fundamental way which is not going to be popular, for example social

care. There will be controversy about that. The seem to be practical

solutions to major problems, whereas I think the Labour Party manifesto,

and some of the others, are more fantastic. Mobot people might like

to see. To be fair to Labour, they point out that there is a

Conservative one has a separate document was it costs everything in

it. They do, but I don't know whether voters are interested in

that. We see practical things which are the questions of what can work

and what can we afford, and the other side which says what would we

like it all to be like? I think it is that clash which will be

interesting over the election. People's whether from thinking, do

we need to just grasp these nettles and say we have to do something

about social care, even if we don't like what is proposed? Or are they

going to say, we are still going to carry on thinking perhaps we can

afford everything. The week ahead, the SNP, do the need to come out

with anything fresh and interesting and different in the manifesto? Or

given their dominance in Scotland, do they need to just say keep going?

Repetition. Vote for the SNP for a strong voice for Scotland in

Westminster. I think some of the arguments they are advancing lack

the traction of 2015 because any prospect of a hung parliament seems

to be gone. Questions on independence will still dominate.

The arithmetic doesn't really give them much purchase at Westminster.

Wiki getting ignored by the Conservatives already. I don't see

by the Conservatives would pay attention to them next time. If you

were the SNP, what would you do? They did so well last time, the risk

is he might not do as well. They could do better. Steady as she goes?

I would try and refresh the message of this fear society. We have been

in power for here -- in power here for ten years. Some of the chickens

are coming home to roost, why haven't they got much better as you

promised? If the SNP gave up this notion of Independence, which I know

they are never going to, but as he just said they were fighting for a

stronger voice for all Scots, I think they would clean up. That is

what people want. People are frightened that an SNP victory will

give them something they don't want. Write them a little memo, dear SNP,

give up independence and you will be fine. The Aberdeen councillors. You

couldn't make this up. I feel slightly sorry for Kezia Dugdale

Emma Way. And if she did Anne Panter she didn't. If Labour had sided with

the Conservatives, the SNP would say vote Labour, get Tory. It was never

going to be an elegant solution to this dilemma. What has come out has

been very ungainly situation. Why not just say, we are not having

deals with the Tories. They're assistant to each particular deal.

This has been politics at its very worst. Local politics which is seen

as came more about politics than the people it is supposed to represent.

I think it has been shameful for the Labour Party and I think the

previous interview with Mr Gordon was such a mess. Mr Rowley. Excuse

me. It must be my age. I think that has been a very bad mark for

politics in general. Thank you very much. We will have to leave it

there. I'll be back at the

same time next week. As voters prepare to go to the polls

to choose who represents them and who will run the country,

the Conservative Party leader, Theresa May, joins me

for The Andrew Neil Interviews.