28/05/2017 Sunday Politics South East

Good morning and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

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

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

Are the politicians and the security services doing

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

in confronting extremist views, as she outlines plans

for a new Commission to counter extremism.

We'll be talking to the Security Minister.

Jeremy Corbyn says a Labour government would recruit 1,000

more staff at security and intelligence agencies.

And in the South East: Whether you're 18 or 80 your vote

counts just the same, so what are the politicians

promising the newest and oldest voters in 2017 -

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

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

morning, I'm joined by Steve Richards, Julia

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

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

the election campaign And some recent polls

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

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

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

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

Nicola Sturgeon facing questions While many across the UK will be

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

in campaigning for And in the evening it will be

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

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

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

Election Debate will see representatives from the seven main

parties debate in front On Thursday, Lib Dem leader Tim

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

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

but will take questions consecutively from members

of the audience. The final week of campaigning

is a short one, with politicians cramming in three days

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

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

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

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

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

polls today, which have the Conservative lead

over Labour anywhere from six points to 14 points.

So, what's going on? Professor John Curtice

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

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

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

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

them with what they were saying before the Conservative manifesto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conservatives have lost some ground depending on which opinion poll you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fold some of their traditional voters who were disenchanted,

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

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

What is your reaction to previous opinion polls and elections weather

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

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

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

which it was carefully explained that pollsters have been trying to

correct the errors that resulted in an overestimation of Labour support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the panel. Julia, how concerned should Conservative headquarters be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

stratospheric. What is interesting is all successful leaders basically

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

narrow. There has not been much campaigning. Local campaigning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Labour manifesto makes more promises about things you care about

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

care about how ordinary government policies affect their lives. Thank

you very much. The election campaign was,

of course, put on hold following the terrorist

attack in Manchester But now that campaigning has

resumed, it's hardly surprising that security

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

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

short while ago, says previous cuts have undermined security.

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

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

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

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

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

to act as well. Joining me now from Leeds

is the Shadow Justice Good morning. You have announced a

thousand more Security and Intelligence agency staff. That is

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

helping keep communities safer. We are pledging 3000 extra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

not only about acts of extreme violence, but anything from

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

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

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

intelligence community and the security service, to the army and

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

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

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

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

and guaranteed that Jeremy Corbyn will listen to the security services

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

Until now he has spent his whole political career voting against

measures designed to tackle home-grown and international

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

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

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

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

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

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

many Conservative MPs, voted against legislation where they thought it

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

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

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

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

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

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

about the international situation has also been said by the former

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

president of back -- President Barack Obama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

your leader is still uncomfortable with giving them the powers they

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

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

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

the beginning of that speech he mentioned the importance of the

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

he has also made clear is responsibility for acts of terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

issues should transcend party politics. We need to pull together

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

promised a new statutory commission The party says it will identify

extremism, including the "non-violent" kind,

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

the Security Minister, Ben Wallace, has attacked internet giants

for failing to tackle terror online, and accused them

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

Those comments you have made about social media companies failing in

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

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

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

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

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

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

internationally, and the Prime Minister urged at the G7 and

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

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

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

these impassioned remarks in the newspapers about them failing to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

picture is a terrorist hate preacher, the jihadist who was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

investigating radicalisation in the UK.

Douglas Murray, of the Henry Jackson Society,

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

of the counter-extremism organisation Inspire.

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

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

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

We remain stuck in the John Lennon response to terrorism -

Our politicians still refuse to accurately identify

the sources of the problem, and polite society

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

Their son repaid that generosity by killing 22 British people,

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

We need to think far more deeply about all this.

Eastern Europe doesn't have an Islamic terrorism problem

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

Are we ever going to draw any lessons from this?

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

The rot isn't just within the Muslim communities.

Consider all those retired British officials and others who shill,

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

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

It is high time we became serious too.

Islamist extremism is flourishing in our country.

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

Whenever I say we must counter those Muslim organisations

who are promoting hatred, discrimination, and sometimes even

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

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

experiencing abuse by some of my fellow Muslims.

These groups and their sympathisers tour Muslim communities,

hold events, and have hundreds of thousands of followers

Yet there is little counter challenge to their toxic

anti-Western narrative, which includes opposition

I've seen politicians and charities partner

with and support some of these voices and groups.

Many anti-racist groups will challenge those on the far

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

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

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

We must counter those who seek to divide us.

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

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

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

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

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

leadership to its student leadership, opposes all aspects of

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

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

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

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

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

the case of Salford, which discourages students from reporting

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

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

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

politicians who have undermined Prevent, community organisations,

Islamist groups who have been at the forefront of undermining and

countering Prevent, but also wider counter extremism measures. Islamist

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

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

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

Isis, we will have hundreds of people convicted of Islamist

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

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

argument when you made the comparison between the numbers of

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

The aunt Tilly Muslim Brotherhood give is that the answer to

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamist extreme terror organisations. Yes, there is a

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

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

seeing Islamist terror organisations, leading theologians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

understanding. You counter radicalisation on a university

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

like Salford University you should be held responsible for not

cooperating with standard security measures. You can challenge

extremism without abandoning human rights. We have got to actually

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

get real about that. Thank you very much.

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

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

Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead.

I'm Julia George - welcome to the Sunday Politics

This morning, in the latest of our general election specials,

we look at an issue that unites young and old alike: housing.

How do you get and keep the keys to your own home?

It's a struggle for young people to get on the property ladder

and many older people now have to sell up to fund

So what can the politicians do about this?

I'm joined by Damian Green for the Conservatives,

Colin Stocks for the Greens and James Flanagan for

Now, do you remember how you felt when you got

For the current generation of first time buyers soaring house prices

are pushing home ownership further and further out of reach.

Helen Drew reports from Tunbridge Wells where the average

house now costs twelve times the average salary.

He's been in work as a plumber for the last eight

years and yet it was only with a deposit from his parents that he

recently bought a flat in Tunbridge Wells, close

to where he grew up, under a shared ownership scheme.

On my own, as a single person, financially to try

and find a property in the south-east is difficult.

I had help from my parents which is fantastic.

The shared ownership scheme has opened a

door which would not have been opened in my position.

His flat is worth ?200,000 and the shared

ownership scheme means he pays a mortgage on the part of the flat

he owns and rent on the bit that

He could own it over time but would have

Across the country, the average house costs over seven times

the average earnings which clearly makes it hard

to get a mortgage and can mean a large deposit is necessary.

But here in Tunbridge Wells, the average house costs 12

And for those renting in the area it is hardly a cheap alternative.

Now we have one expensive flat which is 1,600 per month.

I live with my wife and my kids and we are having

to move out of Tunbridge Wells because prices are a lot cheaper.

We hope to move up Somerset way, got family there, you can get

a four-bedroom there for the same price as a two-bed maisonette here.

We're renting now and hopefully planning to buy but obviously it is

very difficult to put together the deposit.

Renting was not a long-term option for Olly.

It was looking at my options, renting,

it was so frightening, not just the

rental cost but the extra charges with estate agents and people like

that, it seems like an endless money pit for us young people I think it

is damaging us, it is frightening us off.

Something has to change, this cannot continue.

But what changes and how it changes, that is

We put his question to the candidates standing for

First up, Labour, promising to build a million new

Half of those will be council or housing association.

I would like to see as much building as is required in the south-east.

There is a strong demand for housing in south-east.

Because of the cost of housing on the private market.

It was so much easier when I was young,

I got a 100% mortgage when I was 21 which seems a lifetime away which

Finding the deposit and saving for it is next to impossible so by

building new homes, available for young people and all people

of low and medium income, it will help solve the problem.

Next up the Conservatives who say they will build a million

homes by the end of 2020 with a further 5000 homes by 2022.

To have this particular emphasis on homes

that are affordable to young people, both through rental and

Having this mix, having homes for rent and for sale,

having them for families as well as people getting their first home,

that is a kind of mix we want and are determined to achieve.

Ukip say they will provide up to 100,000 new

The solution to social housing is to build modular housing,

have those houses built locally and constructive locally.

They will be for people on incomes of about 26000.

Incidentally, the Tories think 70,000 you qualify for

affordable homes which we think is outrageous.

They would be for people under 40 so we need to give our

young people a chance to get on the housing ladder.

Finally, a 33-year-old Lib Dem struggling to

buy a house herself and keen on her party's rent-to-own policy.

Essentially you pay an amount of rent for 30 years and then

you have bought your home which would be very

helpful to people because it will mean you don't have

The rental will in effect become a mortgage payment?

Yes, exactly, just like a mortgage but no

deposit required so more easily affordable.

For younger voters, like Olly, housing issues could be key

for which box to tick on the 8th of June.

And these are the other candidates standing for election

It is on your screen no. -- now. Let us discuss housing with our guests.

On renting, you heard Ollie Burgess, the 35-year-old plumber talk about

renting as frightening, what are you doing? Politicians want the vote of

young people, record numbers have registered, what have the Liberal

Democrats got to offer the generation frightened by the rental

sector? He is correct, almost half of young people find that half of

their income is going towards essentials, including renting a

mortgage could use. In terms of rent, we want to bring in a rent to

own scheme which means people pay rent and after 30 years they can all

nap property which gets round the deposit but for other younger

people, we want a scheme where the government helps provide a deposit

for people who want to rent. That helps them put down a deposit on a

property and they can go ahead and rent it. It will be difficult for

the Liberal Democrats to get young people to believe in you again,

student debt is no an average of ?44,000, largely thanks you caring

in on tuition fees, how can you persuade them to vote for you in

this election? For young people, especially students, if we introduce

maintenance grants, we need to reintroduce them to help them

weather living costs at university. Or 16 up to 21-year-olds we need to

bring in two thirds discount on public travel passes. A lot of young

people tell me travelling is very expensive nowadays so we want to

help them out with everyday living costs. We will look at that later

on. Next to the Greens, you are placed your manifesto not only to

scrap tuition fees but to cancel all student debt. Your calculations put

that at 14.4 billion but a BBC website whose this at 73.3 billion,

do you need a reality check? No, I do not think so, the Greens have

said all along we need to carefully assess our taxing system to make

sure it is equitable. Some of his policies will be expensive but when

you take the benefits in the round for making a more equitable system,

I think they are all affordable. Do you think you're capturing the youth

vote? You have a whole section in your manifesto for young people.

What else do you have, on housing for existence for young people? Will

you build houses? You clearly looked at our manifesto. That is my job. We

have indeed pledged to build more houses and we appreciate it will

take time -- time but by 2022 we will build 100,000 new homes. We

have progressive policies to make sure that property which is not

being used properly is brought back into use because at the moment that

is a scandal of more than 600,000 homes which are vacant. 200,000 of

which are on occupied for six months or more. It is the fact we have too

many speculators sitting on properties we cannot use. Let us go

to the Conservatives, it is said the young people have nothing to gain

from voting Tory. You have little in your manifesto to improve their

lives. Given the number of young people registering to vote, you have

talked about young people registering before, are you wishing

there is more in your manifesto for the John people? That is a huge

amount in our manifesto, starting in schools where we will spend more...

To take away free school meals? It is not taking away free school meals

from anyone who needs it or free Brexit. Everyone will get a free

Brexit -- breakfast. It will cost 180 million. They have assumed a

100% take-up. It is credited on a 20% take-up. It is our projection

which is predicated on a 25% take-up. The point of the change of

this policy is it will release money for schools to employ more teachers

which is what parents and indeed young people expect so they can get

1.8 million more young people in good or outstanding schools than we

had in 2010. To turn to the housing issue in your film, we have shown

what we can do. We produced a white Paper a few months ago that Will

extends their Help to Buy scheme which is very useful for some of the

people we saw in your film. We have built 189,000 over the new -- last

year. You are nearly 10,000 short of your own commitments and yet you say

you will need a 1 million target yet you do not meet your target for the

first year. We are doing much better know than any government is doing

since the recession. -- much better now. Look at the numbers. Roughly

speaking we need about 200,000 extra homes, that was the week to solve

that problem and we are getting there, no previous government did

that. If we are going to be fair, we need to move on. We will pick up

housing again because whoever gets the keys to number ten in two weeks,

--... you'll want to know what they plan

to do to help you keep yours. What does the future hold

for you if you've got your own home but you're forced to sell up to pay

for old age care? Briohny Williams is in Eastbourne,

where there might be a grey I am at the market here

in Eastbourne on the seafront where people are picking up some

last-minute items But budgeting for the week ahead

is just a small issue. Here in East Sussex,

one in eight people are aged 75 or over so budgeting for care later

in life is a huge concern. The Conservatives hold this seat

by a small majority, less than 2% so knowing who pays

for social care and how it will be funded is a key issue for voters

here and across the south-east. The Conservatives

say they will put a cap on social care funding and also

make people pay for their own care The other parties, well

broadly, they are in favour of bringing a cap

on individual social costs. They also want to boost

funding and put more into the pot by lots of different

measures which could include raising income tax, putting taxes

on the wealthy and also taking some I am with two people

here who have first hand experience of the

social care system. Anne Reid 71, who was a prime care

for her mother and husband and 73-year-old Rosemary Freeman who was

the prime carer for her husband. Anne, with your mother,

how much did her 174,000 came from the sale

of her home and the rest came from I did object to the disparity

that the ?250 a week the social services pay for the same

amount of care in homes Rosemary, you cared for your

husband in your own home. At the moment, if you care

for someone in your own home, the sale of your

house is not included. To see who gets money from the state

but later that could change. Would you be happy for your house

to be sold for your care? No, I wouldn't

because my husband, in his will, has left it to his

children and his grandchildren. Carers at home who look after them,

like I did from 1976 were saving I would be getting 77p per week

because I am over 65. There is some suggestion

that the winter fuel allowance, that payment could be redirected,

would you be in favour of that? No, I would not because that

is very much needed by me now but also by the person you

are looking after because they feel What about taking it

off the most wealthy? Take it off the people

who are abroad and take off the very wealthy people which there

are many in this country. I do not think that fuel allowance

should be taken away. I lost five years of income

looking after my husband. So, Anne and Rosemary,

who pays for social care is a key Yes, and I have

already voted by post. If you are not voting

by post like Rosemary, you still have one and

a half weeks to decide. Rosemary and and talking to our

reporter in East Sussex. One of them has already voted. It is about who

pays, whether we pay for our own old-age care or contribute to

everyone. You want to put 1p on income tax, you want everyone.

Haven't young people contributed enough already? These old people are

happy to sell their houses, why shouldn't they be a bit more towards

their own care? We should pay more through income tax. We want to put

1p on income tax to raise funds for social care. We're seeing one of the

biggest crises in social care for years. There is a ?2 billion black

hole in social care this year alone. We are seeing as much as 1 million

elderly people not getting the care they need. Many thousands of

disabled people not getting the care. So you think everyone should

pay for it? Our view is to put 1p on billion -- 1p on income tax to raise

funds. Why is that fair? Plenty of people have reacted with anger about

the U-turn on social care last week but there are plenty of people who

are saying, like Anne, it is all right to pay for our own care. We

have sat on his houses and generated a lot of money, why do we expect

young people to fund our old-age care? We heard were handset but

there are still many people like they are concerned about what the

Conservatives are planning which is an absolute disgrace in that people

potentially may have to sell their own homes. We have been very honest

and we are putting the penny on income tax. One of the things we

brought in during the coalition was the rise in income tax threshold,

taking many people out of income tax altogether. Let us go to

Conservatives. You must have a sense Conservatives. You must have a sense

of how much you have annoyed your call vote last weekend when you sat

and another BBC studio and said we will not look at this again. Social

care and allowing people to value their homes to be taken into account

in their care and then the very next day a spectacular U-turn, all of a

sudden strong and stable does not cut it any more. We are proposing a

just address that smear, people will just address that smear, people will

not be forced to sell their homes. Their homes will be protected while

the person being cared for is in it. You heard what they care about, it

is about being able to leave a legacy. That is why we have said

first of all there will be ?100,000 left for everyone and now on top of

that, there will be a cap. But that is a U-turn after you said you would

not look at it again, all of a sudden a cap pops up the next day.

We're not looking at principles again, we are revealing the

consultation which includes the cap so that everyone can be assured

something... Why did you not know something... Why did you not know

about that cap last ten? That is the consultation which will be coming

after the election. It clearly was not in the manifesto? The

consultation is in the manifesto. Why did you not know as the pensions

minister? You have to pay for it somehow. The Labour party is going

to put 4 million people into inheritance tax, that is how they

propose to pay for it which is a huge number of elderly people...

They are talking about cross-party consensus. They will not get that by

increasing the inheritance tax threshold. I must bring in the

greens. The fact is we have to ingest the inequities in taxation

system. There will be some unpopular choices but we cannot have civilised

social care without properly integrating the things properly. Who

will pay for it under the Greens, who will pay for social care?

Everyone will peak equitably as I am sure you will know from our

manifesto. That is a wholesale reform of the way the UK runs its

taxes. There will be experiments with land value tax. We will be

changing inheritance tax. Without listing all the possible tax

changes, let us talk about what people care about on the street, we

heard about the winter fuel allowance. Liberal Democrats would

means test this allowance? Who would not get it? The poorest pensioners

were still get the tax. We do you draw the line? We draw the line at

the 40% income tax bracket. How much will that make you? Those who need

it the most will still get the winter fuel allowance. Our total

E.ON is to ensure that those who need it most still get it. I need to

come back and something Damian said in terms of social care. You talked

about a smear, what about carers at home who have elderly relatives at

home that they are killing for in their house, could they not still

lose their house if that person died? The point of our system is to

address the underlying point which was well put out by the ladies in

the discussion by the way people feel the inequities about the

system. The social care system is not working, we put more money in

and we need to put yet more money in which is why we are talking about

changes... I think you're dodging the point of how much impact this

has had on your call vote. You talk to in the past about knowing how

important it is to know your core voters. I was presenting a radio

show the next morning and I was staggered by people telephoning into

Sadie would rather kill themselves rather than not allow their legacy

to go to those people. That is how much you have upset your voters. I

understand that any party making a significant proposal that people

should be able to leave things to their children, we understand that,

that is part of our proposal and that has been a lot of discussion.

How high is your threshold? That is part of the consultation. People

therefore do not know? The point is about inheritance, our proposal is

that whatever happens, however expensively care is, people will be

eager to pass on ?100,000. This winter fuel allowance is a red

herring because it is a relative amount of small money. It does not

address inequities. It is a disgrace anyone should be worried about the

expense of heating their home, young or old so we need to make sure

energy is affordable. You are not going to change any other pension

benefits? There are no plans to means test. We will be introducing,

as in the manifesto, a citizens pension. We have proposals on

inheritance tax. A final thought on whether you think, Damian Green, do

you think you have seen, I am so sorry and I was about to formulate

another question but time has got the best of us.

This programme is part of a series of shows

leading up to polling day - we will be hearing from all

the major parties standing candidates in the south east

on a range of issues during the General Election campaign.

That's all we've got time for from the South East this week.

Natalie Graham will be here next week with the last of our election

re-elected. Is the only choice for strong and stable leadership.

Now, after the Manchester attack, will the final week of election

campaigning different in tone from what came before? My panel are here.

Tim Marshall, it will be very front of Centre for the next few days. Is

that a good thing for the election if it is going to be framed to who

do you feel more safe with? It is inevitable but I think it will only

be part of the election. As I said before the opt out, for many voters

this is also about economics, unemployment. It is not all about

Brexit, nor is it only about security. What it will do, I hope,

is get the tone of the debate right. Although I have already seen the

tone being lowered. I wasn't impressed with Mr Corbyn's speech

last week blaming it on a foreign policy, which is a wafer thin

analysis of what is going on. Inappropriate timing too soon? No, I

think the argument is utter nonsense. I don't want to attack

just one side. The Conservative party, I've forgotten which minister

has already said that we would be safer under a Tory Prime Minister,

it has got nothing to do with Labour or Tory government, the next Islamic

attack. It is to do with jihadist ideology, not party policies. You

raise an important issue about tone. It also points to a broader

argument, one we were having earlier, has politics been two

courses with this issue of extremism? Has the conversation

about it tiptoed around some of the sensitive issues? And by the media.

You highlight the problem of this being part of the election campaign

by saying, has politics been too cautious? Who do you mean by

politics? And in an election campaign there is a duty to be a

divide, and adamant about values, policies etc. Security is an issue

that transcends those political divides. So I think it is deeply

unhealthy. It is nobody's fault a tragedy occurred. But if you ask me

does it help or enhance an election debate? Emphatically not. A tragic

event brings politics, as you call it, together. Security is an issue

that is complex and doesn't divide neatly. Elections are political

battles, by definition. So I think the coming together of this, a

tragedy occurred anyway, but it is an unfortunate context. Do you agree

or do you think this is a time to talk about these issues? Is it a

time to review the level of argument? This is a political

debate. I personally think the politicians should have been out and

about on Wednesday. There is no wrong time to get it right. We

mustn't let the terrorists affect our way of life. But they have when

we disrupt the election campaign. It may be party political. But for a

lot of voters, including me, I want to hear from party leaders. What do

you plan to do about this? Right now, I've not heard anything that

suggests any of these parties have got to grips with the real problem,

which is that we are not actually tackling the problem in our midst.

Douglas Murray touched on it earlier. We have not even come to

grips with the scale of the problem. Does Labour have a grip -- Power

Point in terms of terrorist legislation? It is complicated. And

not all of it has worked or is used enough by government? It is another

example where this doesn't work in an election debate because David

Davis has opposed a lot of this terrorism legislation. He is now

heading Brexit. There is a civil liberties argument which I

personally have doubts about. Again, it brings people together from the

major parties. And Corbyn didn't actually say it was the cause of

terrorism, British foreign policy, but it helped to facilitate

terrorism, which is a different argument. Again, that would be

supported by some Tories as well. That is why it is difficult in an

election campaign for this issue to dominate. The front page of the

Sunday Times talks about a campaign relaunch, which may not, grow as a

great surprise following the social care fiasco. Do we know what that

will entail? It sounds like Boris Johnson will play a role. The whole

point is it was all about Theresa May and it turns out that is not

quite good enough. The more we have seen of Theresa May, the less

impressive she has looked. Certainly the Andrew Neil interview just

repeating the same thing again and again. Voters don't like that. They

like people who are honest and actually engage with them. When we

see beat interviews in the next few days, I think it will be interesting

to see if she changes tack and tries to engage with what people are

asking. If it is back to leadership and Brexit, and the economy, will

that be more comfortable ground? I think so. I understand framing it in

terms of Brexit. But she has got to broaden it out. I think that is why

she is broadening it out. I don't think the tragic events will

absolutely dominate. That would be a small victory for terrorism. This is

a country of 65 million people with an awful lot of issues. We have 65

million votes, well, 65 million people with opinions in two weeks.

It is quite a long campaign. There is still time to go. What do you

think Labour will be focusing on from now on? I would imagine they

will look very closely at where they are well ahead in the opinion polls

and focus on that relentlessly. Public services, NHS etc. And try to

get it off as soon as possible from security and fees is used which, on

one level at least, appear to be a gift to the Conservatives. I assume

that is what they are going to do. But this is a very unpredictable

campaign where nothing has gone according to plan. Let's look ahead.

On Wednesday evening we have got an election debate. It is in Cambridge.

Leaders of some of the parties. Amber Rudd will be representing the

Conservatives. We don't know yet who will represent Labour. Today we have

had Amber Road and Diane Abbott against each other on Andrew Marr.

Let's have a look. I think there is something to be said for a Home

Secretary who has actually worked in the Home Office. I work in the home

office for nearly three years as a graduate trainee. This government

has always felt that urgency. That is why we have been putting in

additional money. It is significant that the commission for extremism in

the manifesto was put in before Manchester. We need to do more. You

voted against prescribing those groups. Because there were groups on

that list I deemed to be dissidents rather than terrorist organisations.

We are making good progress with the companies who put in place

encryption. We will continue to build on that. It was 34 years ago.

I had a rather splendid Afro at the time. I don't have the same

hairstyle. And I don't have the same views. It is 34 years on. The

hairstyle has gone. Some of the views have gone. So you no longer,

you regret what you said about the IRA? The hairstyle has gone, the

views have gone. I would say to Diane Abbott that I have changed my

hairstyle are few times in 34 years but I have not changed my view of

how we keep the British public safe. Let's get away from hairstyle sides

talk about the prospect of the two of them taking part in the election

debate. Would you like to see that? On one level I would like to see it

and another the level I would like to see an intelligent debate. I'm

glad I never had an Afro or supported the IRA. Whenever Diane

Abbott steps out in a TV studio or a radio studio, Labour haemorrhage

votes. She cannot say things like my regret supporting this or that

legislation. She is an absolute disaster. If Labour put her up, they

are beyond mad. Who do you think Labour should put up? By the way, I

did have an Afro! I based my whole log on Kevin Keegan and it was good.

That is the wrong question. I will explain why. The Labour campaign, it

seems to me there were only five or six people put up. That is the fault

of others who refused to take part. It also shows the degree to which

the current leadership can only rely on five or six people. I would

imagine we are talking about a pool of five or six people. As for my

judgment as to who the best public performer is in that pool, it would

be by some margin John McDonnell, who is a very good interviewee and

performer. I think he is a very good performer. It would come back to the

economy at some point, presumably. But then it comes back to the IRA. I

don't think the debate will be very illuminating. I think if Amber Rudd

is there, Diane Abbott should be there. I think the leaders should be

debating. Some people say it is froth. I think the leader -- the

electorate gets a sense of the leaders. On haircuts, I would like

to thank both of them are talking about the haircuts. I am looking

forward to tomorrow's papers and the theme that will run through the

week. Let's not finish on the hair. Thank you very much for being our

guests. That is it for today. Thank the panel for Jonny May. Andrew Neil

will be back next weekend. And I will be back on BBC Two on Tuesday.

That is at midday with more daily politics. In the meantime, have a

very lovely bank holiday. From all of us here, bye-bye.