14/05/2017 Sunday Politics South West


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 14/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.


Theresa May unveils plans to build many more affordable homes


in England, but with no price tag, timetable or building targets -


Labour takes aim at the City with what it calls a Robin Hood Tax


to fund public services, but will traders just


Don't look at the polls - Jeremy Corbyn, at least,


insists he can win this election - so which way will


We'll hear from a focus group in Leeds.


Hello, I'm Lucie Fisher, coming up on the Sunday Politics


The fishermen questioning the government's promise to take


and here, what the parties are saying about tackling the air


pollution problem in London. And with me, our own scientifically


selected focus group of political pundits -


they're not so much undecided as clueless -


Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott They'll be tweeting


throughout the programme. So, we've got two new


policies this morning. Labour say they will introduce


a financial transaction tax if they win the general election


and what they're calling "the biggest crackdown on tax


avoidance in the country's history". The Conservatives say they'll work


with local authorities in England to build council houses


with the right to buy. Theresa May says the policy


"will help thousands of people get on the first rung


of the housing ladder". Steve, what do you make of them? I


have been conditioned after doing tax and spend debates in


pre-election periods for many decades to treat policy is not as


literal but as arguments. In other words if you look back to 2015 the


Tory plan to wipe out the deficit was never going to happen and yet it


framed and large event. In that sense the Robin Hood tax is a


sensible move for Labour to make at this point because it is part of a


narrative of reconfiguring taxation to be fair. Treating it as an


argument rather than something that would happen in day one of Labour


government is sensible. In terms of building houses Theresa May said


right from the beginning when she was in Number Ten that there is a


housing deficit in this country rather than the economic deficit


George Osborne was focusing on, and this is an example of trying to get


house-building going. It seems entirely sensible, not sure how it


works with right to buy but again as framing of a 90 minute it makes


sense. I disagree with Steve on one front which is how sensible Theresa


May's policy is on the housing announcement. I think more broadly


these two announcements have something in common which is that


over the next 24 hours both will probably unravel in different ways.


Ye of little faith! The Mayor of London has already said he doesn't


agree with this, and when people see the actual impact of what looks like


a populist tax will very potentially affect people's pensions, it might


become a lot less popular. On the Tory housing plans, I think it is


difficult to imagine how they are going to implement this huge, what


looks like a huge land and property grab. Through compulsory purchase


orders, which are not a simple instrument. They say they will


change the law but really the idea of paying people below the market


value for their assets is not something I can see sitting easily


with Tory backbenchers or the Tories in the House of Lords. Tom. Both


would appear superficially to be appealing to traditional left and


traditional right bases. What is more Tory than right to buy, then


councils sell on these houses, and Labour slapping a massive tax on the


city. The Tories' plan, I would say look a bit deeper and all of the


Tory narrative from the last six years which hasn't worked well is


talking about the private sector increasing supply in the market. Now


Mrs May is talking about the role for the state after all so this is


the shift creeping in. On the Labour transaction tax, one of the most


interesting things I heard in days was from Paul Mason, former BBC


correspondent, now a cog in Easter extreme. On Newsnight he said don't


worry about whether the Labour manifesto will add up, I'm promising


it will, the bigger Tory attack line should be what on earth will be the


macroeconomic effect of taking so much tax out of the system. Very


well, we shall see. At least we have some policies to talk about.


Now, on Tuesday Labour will launch its manifesto.


But we've already got a pretty good idea of what's in it -


that's because most of its contents were leaked to the media


Labour has a variety of spending pledges including an extra


?6 billion a year for the NHS, an additional ?8 billion for social


care over the lifetime of the next parliament,


as well as a ?250 billion in infrastructure over


The party will support the renewal of the Trident submarine system,


although any Prime Minister should be extremely cautious


about its use, and the party will hold a strategic defence


and security review immediately after the election.


In terms of immigration, Labour will seek "reasonable


management of migration", but it will not make "false


Elsewhere, university tuition fees will be abolished,


and the public sector pay cap, which limits pay rises


for public sector workers to 1%, will be scrapped.


The party also aims to renationalise the railways, the Royal Mail


and the National Grid, as well as creating at least one


A senior Labour backbencher described it to the Sunday Politics


as a manifesto for a leadership who don't "give a toss


about the wider public", and several other Labour candidates


told us they thought it had been deliberately


leaked by the leadership, with one suggesting


the leak was intended to "bounce the National Executive"


And we're joined now from Salford by the Shadow Business Secretary,


Welcome to the programme. The draft manifesto proposed to renationalise


the number of industry. You will wait for the franchises to run out


rather than buy them out at the moment so can you confirm the


railways will not be wholly nationalised until 2030, after three


Labour governments, and Jeremy Corbyn will be 80? I'm not going to


comment on leaks, you will just have to be patient and wait to see what


is in our manifesto. But you have already announced you will


nationalise the railways, so tell me about it. We have discussed taking


the franchises into public ownership as they expire, however the detail


will be set out in the manifesto so I'm not prepared to go into detail


until that policy is formally laid out on Tuesday. That doesn't sound


very hopeful but let's carry on. You will also nationalise the National


Grid, it has a market capitalisation of ?40 billion, why do you want to


nationalise that? Again, I'm not going to speculate on leaks, you


will just have to be patient. But you said you will nationalise the


National Grid so tell's Y. The leaks have suggested but you will just


have to wait and see what the final manifesto states on that one. So is


it a waste of time me asking you how you will pay for something that


costs 40 billion? Be patient, just couple of days to go, but what I


would say is there is growing pressure from the public to reform


the utilities sector. The Competition and Markets Authority


stated in 2015 that bill payers were paying over till debt -- ?2 billion


in excess of what they should be paying so there is a clear need for


reform. The bills we get are from the energy companies, you are not


going to nationalise them, you are going to nationalise the


distribution company and I wondered what is the case for nationalising


the distribution company? As I said, our full plans will be set out on


Tuesday. In relation to the big six energy companies, we know in recent


years they have been overcharging customers... There's no point in


answering questions I am not asking. I am asking what is the case for


nationalising the National Grid? There is a case for reforming the


energy sector as a whole and that looks at the activities of the big


six companies and it will look at other aspects too. You will have to


be patient and wait until Tuesday. What about the Royal Mail? Again,


you will have to wait until Tuesday. Why can't you just be honest with


the British voter? We know you are going to do this and you have a duty


to explain. I'm not even arguing whether it is right or wrong. The


Royal Mail was sold off and we know it was sold under value and British


taxpayers have a reason to feel aggrieved about that. There is a


long-term strategy that would ensure the Royal Mail was classified as a


key piece of infrastructure but the details of that will be set out in


our manifesto because we want to ensure businesses and households


ensure the best quality of service when it comes to their postal


providers. You plan to borrow an extra 25 billion per year, John


McDonnell has already announced this, on public investment, on top


of the around 50 billion already being planned for investment. You


will borrow it all so that means, if you can confirm, that many years


after the crash by 2021, Labour government would still be borrowing


75 billion a year. Is that correct? We have set out ?250 billion of


capital investment, and ?250 billion for a national investment bank. Our


financial and fiscal rules dictate we will leave the Government in a


state of less debt than we found it at the start of the parliament so we


won't increase the national debt at the end of our Parliamentary term.


How can you do that if by 2021 you will still be borrowing around 75


billion a year, which is more than we borrow at the moment? The 500


billion figure is set out over a period of ten years, it's a figure


that has been suggested by Peter Helm from Oxford University as a


figure that is necessary to bring us in line with other industrial


competitors. Similar figures have been suggested by groups such as the


CBI. By the way I have not included all 500 billion, just the 250


billion on public spending, not the extra money. You talk about the


fiscal rules. The draft manifesto said you will leave debt as a


proportion of trend GDP law at the end of each parliament, you have


just said a version of that. What is trend GDP? In clear terms we will


ensure the debt we acquire will be reduced by the end of the


parliament. We won't leave the Government finances in a worse state


than we found them. OK, but what is trend GDP? Our rule is we will


ensure public sector net debt is less than we found it when we came


to power in Government on June the 8th. But that is not what your draft


manifesto says. I'm not going to comment on leaks, you are just going


to have to wait until Tuesday to look at the fine detail and perhaps


we will have another chat then. You have published your plans for


corporation tax and you will increase it by a third and your


predictions assumed that will get an extra 20 billion a year by the end


of the parliament. But that assumes the companies don't change their


behaviour, that they move money around, they leave the country or


they generate smaller profits. Is that realistic? You are right to


make that point and you will see when we set out our policies and


costings in the manifesto that we haven't spent all of the tax take.


We have allowed for different differentials and potential changes


in market activity because that would be approved and direction to


take. But corporation tax is allowed to be cut in France and the United


States, it's only 12.5% in Dublin. Many companies based in Britain are


already wondering whether they should relocate because of Brexit,


if you increase this tax by a third couldn't that clinch it for a number


of them? No, we will still be one of the lowest corporation tax rate in


the G7. Let's look at what's important for business. Cutting


corporation tax in itself doesn't improve productivity, or business


investment and there's no suggestion cutting corporation tax in recent


years has achieved that. Businesses need an investment in tools in


things they need to thrive and prosper, they also need to reduce


the burden at the lower end of the tax scale, before we get to the


Prophet stage. One key example is business rates. We have made the


proposal to government to in -- exclude machinery so businesses can


invest and grow operations in the future but the Government refused.


Corporation tax has been cut since 2010. When it was 28% it brought in


?43 billion a year. Now it is down to 20%, it brought in ?55 billion a


year. By cutting it in the last year, it brought in 21% more, so


what is the problem? It might have brought in more money, but has it


increased business investment in the long term. It is not just about


cutting corporation tax, but it is on the ability of businesses to


thrive and prosper. Business investment in the UK is below are


industrial competitors. Wages are stagnating which doesn't indicate


businesses are not doing well. Let me get it right, you are arguing if


we increase business tax by a third, that will increase investment? I am


not saying that. You just did. Know I didn't, I said reducing business


tax isn't enough, you have to invest in the things businesses need to


thrive and prosper. You have also got to lessen the burden on


business. You have announced a financial transaction tax. Your own


labour Mayor of London said he has vowed to fight it. He said I do not


want a unilateral tax on business in our city, so why are you proceeding


with it? This isn't a new initiative, there is a growing


global pressure to make sure we have fairness in the financial sector.


Ordinary British people are paying for our banking crisis they didn't


cause. Another important point, stamp duty reserve tax was brought


in in the 1600 and there have been little reforms. The sector has


changed and we have do provide changes to the system for that


change. High-frequency trading where we have a state of affairs where a


lot of shares are traded on computers within milliseconds. We


need a tax system that keeps up with that. What happens if they move the


computers to another country? Emily Thornaby said this morning, other


countries had already introduced a financial transaction tax, what


other countries have done that? There are ten countries looking at


introducing a transaction tax. Which ones have done it so far? They will


be later announcing a final package, going through the finer detail at


the moment. But the European Commission tried to get this done in


2011 and it still hasn't happened in any of these countries. But you are


going to go ahead unilaterally and risk these businesses, which


generate a lot of money, moving to other jurisdictions. There is not a


significant risk of that happening. The stamp duty reserve tax is levied


at either where the person or company is domiciled or where the


instrument is issued rather than worth the transaction takes place.


This tax in itself is not enough to make people leave this country in


terms of financial services because there is more to keep these


businesses here in terms of the investment we are making, the


economy that Labour will build, in terms of productivity improvement we


will see. Thank you very much, Rebecca Long-Bailey.


And listening to that was the Home Office Minister, Brandon Lewis.


Over the years, you have got corporation tax by 20%, it is lower


than international standards, so why are so many global companies who


make money out of Great Britain, still not paying 20%? It is one of


the problems with the point Labour were making and Rebecca could not


answer, these companies can move around the world. One of the


important things is having a low tax economy but these businesses, it


encourages them to come at a rate they are prepared to pay. People may


say they are right, if they were paying 19, 20% incorporation tax.


But they are not. Google runs a multi-million pound corporation and


did not pay anywhere near 20%. There are companies that are trading


internationally and that is why we have to get this work done with our


partners around the world. Has there been an improvement? It is more than


they were paying before. Whether it is Google or any other company,


alongside them being here, apart from the tax they pay, it is the


people they employ. The deal was, if you cut the business tax, the


corporation tax on profits, we would get more companies coming here and


more companies paying their tax. It seems it doesn't matter how low, a


number of companies just pay a derisory amount and you haven't been


able to change that. As you outlined, the income taken from the


changing corporation tax has gone up. That is from established British


companies, not from these international companies. It is


because more companies are coming here and paying tax. That is a good


thing. There is always more to do and that is why we want to crack


down. In the last few weeks in the Finnish Parliament, Labour refused


to put to another ?8.7 billion of tax take we could have got by


cracking down further. You claim to have made great progress on cracking


down on people and companies to pay the tax they should. But the tax gap


is the difference between what HMRC takes in and what it should take in.


It has barely moved in five years, so where is the progress? He have


brought in 150 billion more where we have cracked down on those tax


schemes. The gap is still the same as it was five years ago. It's gone


from 6.8, 26.5. It has gone down. The Prime Minister and the


Chancellor said they want to continue work on to get more money


on these companies while still having a competitive rate to


encourage these companies. While big business and the wealthy continue to


prosper, the Office for Budget Responsibility tell us those on


average earnings in this country will be earning less in real terms


by 2021 than they did in 2008. How can that be fair? I don't see it


that way. I haven't seen the figures you have got. What I can say to you,


Andrew, we have made sure the minimum wage has gone up, the actual


income tax people pay has gone down. So in their pocket, real terms,


people have more money. You are the self-styled party of work. We keep


emphasising work. Under your government you can work for 13 years


and still not earn any more at the end of it, and you did at the start.


Where is the reward for effort in that? I have not seen those figures.


There are 2.8 million more people, more jobs in economy than there was.


1000 jobs every day and people are working and developing through their


careers. This is what I thought was odd in what Rebecca was saying,


investing in people is what the apprenticeship levy is about,


companies are investing their works force to take more opportunities


that there. We are talking about fairness, politicians talk about


hard-working people and we know the average earnings are no higher than


they were in 2008. We know the pay and bonuses of senior executives


have continued to grow and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has


shown 3 million of the poorest households will lose an average of


?2500 a year in the next Parliament, benefits frozen, further sanctions


kick in. 3 million of the poorest losing 2500. Under the Tories, one


law for the rich and another for the poor. It is quite wrong. First of


all, we have got to be fair to the taxpayer who is funding the welfare


and benefit system. Which is why the welfare was right. Get more people


in work and then it is important to get more people upscaling. As that


allowance rises, people have more of the money they earn in their pocket


to be able to use in the economy. People will be worse off. 2500,


among the poorest already. They will have more money in their pocket as


we increase the allowance before people pay tax. We have seen


millions of people coming out of tax altogether. The reason I ask these


questions, you and the Prime Minister go on and on about the just


about managing classes. I am talking about the just about managing and


below that. It is all talk, you haven't done anything for them. We


have made sure they have an increasing minimum wage, it has gone


up more under us than any other previous government. Their wages


will be still lower in real terms. Let me come on to this plan for


housing. We have announced a new plan to increase affordable housing,


social housing, some council housing and social housing built by the


associations. How much money is behind this? It is part of the 1.4


billion announced in the Autumn Statement. How many homes will you


get for 1.4 billion? That depends on the negotiations with local


authorities. It is local authorities, who know the area best.


I will not put a number on that. 1.4 billion, if you price the house at


100,000, which is very low, particularly for the South, back at


you 14,000 new homes. That is it. What we have seen before, how the


local government can leveraged to build thousands more homes. That is


what we want to see across the country. It is not just about the


money, for a lot of local authorities it is about the


expertise and knowledge on how to do this. That is why support from the


housing communities minister will help. What is the timescale, how


many more affordable homes will be built? I will not put a number on


it. You announced it today, so you cannot tell me how many more or what


the target is? It is a matter of working with the local authorities


who know what their local needs are, what land they have got available.


What we saw through the local elections with the Metro mayors,


they want to deliver in their areas, whether it is the West of England,


the north-east, Liverpool, Manchester and we want to work with


them. You have said variations of this for the past seven years and I


want some credibility. When you cannot tell us how much money, what


the target and timescale is, and this government, under which


affordable house building has fallen to a 24 year low. 1.2 million


families are on waiting lists for social housing to rent. That is your


record. Why should we believe a word you say? This is different to what


we have been doing over the last two years. We want to develop and have a


strong and stable economy that can sustain that 1.4 billion homes. This


is important. In 2010, we inherited the lowest level of house building,


75,000 new homes. That is about 189,000 over the last four years.


That is a big step forward after the crash, getting people back into the


industry. More first-time buyers onto the market. Final question, in


2010, 2011, your first year in government, there were 60,000


affordable homes built. May not be enough, but last day it was 30 2000.


So why should we trust anything you say about this? On housing, we have


delivered. We have delivered more social housing. Double what Labour


did in 13 years, in just five years. This is what this policy is about,


working with local authorities to deliver more homes to people in


their local areas. Thank you. Now, they have a deficit


of between 15 and 20% in the polls, but Jeremy Corbyn and those


around him insist Labour can win. If the polls are right they've got


three and half weeks to change voters' minds and persuade those


fabled undecided voters We enlisted the polling organisation


YouGov to help us find out how the performance of party leaders


will affect behaviour Leeds, a city of three quarters


of a million people, eight Parliamentary seats and home


to our very own focus group. Our panel was recruited


from a variety of backgrounds and the majority say they haven't


decided who to vote for yet. Watching behind the glass,


two experts on different sides Giles Cunningham, who headed up


political press at Downing Street under David Cameron


and Aaron Bastani, Corbin supporter, under David Cameron


and Aaron Bastani, Corbyn supporter, I think Theresa May sees herself


as a pound shop Thatcher. Milliband's policies but when it


came about who you want,


if you wake up on maybe a 2015, We found in a couple of focus


groups, people saying we'd be quite relieved,


even though some of those same people have been saying we quite


like the Labour policies. I think the fact that Corbyn's


going so hard on his values, this is a really progressive


manifesto, they live But I think that's a new challenge,


that wasn't there in 2015. Is there anyone here that


you don't recognise? After a little warm up,


the first exercise, recognising I think it's nice to have a strong


woman in politics, I do. But I've got to say,


when she comes on the news, I kind of do think,


here we go again. Tell me about Tim Farron, what


are your impressions of Tim Farron? It isn't going to do anything,


it isn't going to change anything. You'll be surprised to hear it's


actually the Greens. Strong and stable leadership


in the national interest. Yes, Team May, it's


the British equivalent of make What do we think about this one


for the many and not the few? It's not quite as bad


as strong and stable, but it will probably get


on our nerves after a while. We must seize that chance today


and every day until June the 8th. But that's not quite my


question, my question is, if you are Prime Minister,


we will leave, come hell or high water, whatever is on the table


at the end of the negotiations? If we win the election,


we'll get a good deal with Europe. Assertive and in control


and he felt comfortable But the second one, I thought


he was very hesitant. I thought he was kind of,


hovering around, skirting around and that's the second


time I've seen a similar interview with the question


being asked regarding Brexit. I don't think I'd have


any confidence with him You think you are going up


against some quite strong people, how are you going to stand


up for us? When you are in negotiations,


you need to be tough. And actually is right


to be tough sometimes, particularly when you are doing


something for the country. There's a reason for talking


about strong and stable leadership. It's about the future


of the country, it's It's just that people kind of listen


to that kind of thing and think Both on The One Show


and in the news. She attracts the public better


than what Corbyn does. She didn't answer the question


in a more articular way than Corbyn Imagine that Theresa


May is an animal. So, in your minds,


what animal is coming to mind I've done a Pekinese because I think


she's all bark and no bite. Alpaca because she's


superior looking and woolly I don't think his policies


are for the modern, real world. A mouse because they are weak


and they can be easily bullied, but also they can catch


you by surprise if you're What do you take away


from what you saw then, and what message would you send back


to the Tories now? I think what came over is people see


Theresa May as a strong politician, not everyone likes her,


but you don't need to be liked to be elected,


because ultimately it's about who do you trust with your future


and your security. I think what I also take out


of that focus group, was it was a group of floating


voters, there was no huge appetite for the Lib Dems and there was no


huge appetite for Ukip. So my messaged back to CCHQ


would be stick to the plan. I thought the response


to the manifesto was excellent. It's clear that people aren't


particularly keen on Theresa May, There are some associations with her


about strength and stability, which is exactly what the Tory party


want of course, but they are not positive and nobody thinks


that she has a vision So, what I'd say the Jeremy Corbyn,


what I'd say to the Labour Party is, they need to really emphasise


the manifesto in Jeremy Corbyn himself has to perform


out of his skin and I think he has to reemphasise those


characteristics which may be have come to the fore may be


over the last 12 months, resilience, strength and the fact


that he's come this far, why not take that final step and go


into ten Downing Street? We're joined now by the American


political consultant For the sake of this discussion,


assume the polls at the moment are broadly right, is there any hope for


Mr Corbyn in the undecided voters? Know, and this is a very serious


collection with serious consequences to who wins. Nobody cares whether


you can draw and what animal they represent, they want to know where


they stand, and I felt that was frivolous. I come to Britain to


watch elections because I learned from here. Your elections are more


substantial, more serious, more policy and less about personality


and that peace was only about personality. That's partly because


Mrs May has decided to make this a presidential election. You can see


on the posters it is all Team May. I agree with that, and in her language


she says not everyone benefits from a Conservative government, I don't


see how using anything Republicans have used in the past. In fact her


campaign is more of a centrist Democrats but it is a smart strategy


because it pushes Corbyn further to the left. Of course you said Hillary


Clinton have won. On election night the polling was so bad in America,


the exit polls that were done, the BBC told America she had won. No, I


was anchoring the programme that night, I ignored your tweet. The BBC


had the same numbers. Yes, but we did not say she had won, I can


assure you of that. Because of people like you we thought she had


but we didn't broadcast it. That was a smart approach. My point is other


than teasing you, maybe there is hope for Jeremy Corbyn. I think you


will have one of the lowest turnout in modern history and I think Labour


will fall to one of the lowest percentages, not percentage of


number of seats they have had, and this will be a matter of


soul-searching for both political parties. What you do with a sizeable


majority, and she has a responsibility to tell the British


people exactly what happens as she moves forward. He and Labour will


have to take a look at whether they still represent a significant slice


of the British population. Do you see a realignment in British


politics taking place? I see a crumbling of the left and yet there


is still a significant percentage of the British population that once


someone who is centre-left. And they like a lot of Mr Corbyn's policies.


I'm listening to Michael foot. I went to school here in the 1980s and


I feel like I'm watching the Labour Party of 35 years ago, in a


population that wants to focus on the future, not the past. Thank you.


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.


Hello, I'm Lucie Fisher, coming up on the Sunday Politics


The fishermen questioning the government's promise to take


And for the next twenty minutes, I'm joined by the Conservative


parliamentary candidate for Plymouth Moor View Jonny Mercer


and the Labour candidate for South East Cornwall Gareth Derrick -


Theresa May has indicated she will allow


Conservative MPs a free vote on whether to bring


The use of hunting with dogs has been banned since 2004


when Tony Blair's government voted for an end to the sport.


Mrs May was asked her views on the subject at a question


and answer session in Leeds earlier this week.


This is the situation on which individuals have one view pro or


against. As it happens, I have always been in favour of fox


hunting. We maintain our commitment, hunting. We maintain our commitment,


we have had a commitment to allow a free vote at the Conservative Party.


That is what we would allow Parliament the opportunity to take


the decision on this. Do you think Mrs May is genuine, prepare to say


what she thinks even if it is unpopular. It is an absurd thing to


be raising this time. Far more important things we should be


talking about in this election. If it came back to Parliament, forced


majority, it would be insult to the majority, it would be insult to the


British people who have made it quite clear we don't have any


interest going back to that part of fox hunting. The callous and cruel


killing of animals by wild dogs. Going further than that, if we did


bring it back into law, how embarrassing would that be on the


international scene? An embarrassment for Britain to take


that backward step. Reading is well and truly a box of faded, colonial


power. Is it absurd? Quite stringent, Mrs May? I was not


expecting it. Not an issue that has come up on the doors too much in


Plymouth, we have not seen the hunt going down Tavistock Road for some


time. Is it toxic for the party? I don't think it is toxic the


perception around hunting is different from the reality. If you


push up into Dartmoor, there are country communities focused around


country sports. They say eight in ten members of the public against


the? Could be up highly unpopular move? It could go to a free vote,


let's see what happened. Country sports can be enjoyed without


killing. The enjoyment part of sport is going about the killing of the


animals. How will you vote? I do a thing called direct democracy, which


I did since 2015. It has many flaws, but I will be doing it. You ask


members of the public? I will ask people in Plymouth as to which way I


will vote. What would you vote in the poll? In this direct democracy


I'll be representing people in Plymouth. Both of you service


personnel. Very lucky, former service personnel. Joined by you in


a week where military was top of the agenda.


First there was the Conservative promise to spend a bit


more money on defence, then Labour's Jeremy Corbyn said


And all this watched closely in Plymouth where past elections


have been a very tight fight between the two parties.


It is the biggest naval base in western Europe. Covering 650 acres.


Devonport is usually important to the local economy in Plymouth,


employing 2500 people and hundreds of local firms. In the run-up to a


general election, when political parties start talking about defence


spending, people here tend to listen. The best defence for Britain


is a government actively engaged in seeking political solutions to the


world's problems. In a week in which Labour's manifesto was leaked to the


press, Jeremy Corbyn was forced to clarify the party's position on


defence. I accept military action under international law is a


circumstances is necessary. His circumstances is necessary. His


message was not well received on the high street in Devonport. With


Corbett not wanting a nuclear deterrent, every country, we need


it, all these tinpot countries, like North Korea, you have to watch those


countries. It has not been all plain sailing for the Conservatives. In


2015, rumours and the press, that Plymouth -based HMS Ocean, fresh


after refit was to be decommissioned. Rubbished by the Dem


candidate Johnny Mercer. Concerned by the governorship would go out of


service in 2018. The city's Royal commander Citadel base will close in


the next ten years. The first time I've done myself. Inside this newly


opened pasty shop, uncertainty about which way they will vote. Everybody


promises this and that. Generally getting in, we will forget about


that from now. We will bring this in. I honestly don't know. We're


quite well-known for our services. That is why we get left alone. This


week in a letter to the Prime Minister a group of former military


top brass criticised the current level of defence spending. Currently


two percent of GDP. This we are going to spend two percent is


needs is about 3%, the money spent needs is about 3%, the money spent


on front line military capabilities, and for the pensions. All the other


things that do not deliver front line key abilities to be taken out


of the defence budget. The Conservatives five back they had


raised the defence budget in each year Parliament if they win the


election. Labour says they would maintain concurrent defence spending


levels. Johnny Kimura former British Army officer. A volatile world out


ballistic missiles, China has become ballistic missiles, China has become


Middle East. Our Tories taking Middle East. Our Tories taking


defence spending seriously enough? There are real challenges around the


fence. I made no secret about that in my first two years in Parliament.


I want to see an increase in defence expenditure. The idea we have a


military incapable, poorly equipped and so once, it is all relative. Our


capabilities, we have lost people, but our capabilities are phenomenal.


You look at the reach of our UK operations, and so forth. They are


exponentially getting better. Should we be doing more? Yes. The idea we


are driving around in a tinpot military, offensive. We don't need


3%? I would argue for as much as we can. It is not about the figure. It


is about the capability we can project with our Armed Forces. Two


percent, 3%, whatever. We need to configure ourselves to face the


threats we are facing. What do you make of the Tory pledge? I would


jump in there. To say that the capability is increasing


exponentially is ridiculous. Very consistent what we're hearing from


the very top, Theresa May, Michael Fallon. We are at the point where


defence spending is at a 20 year low. It was 1.9% of GDP last year


this they are pledging to increase it by a very minor amount, 0.5% per


year. Not going to address the very real problems. We have a very


diminished fleet. Only 19 service ships. That they have the drop in


the future. There is not the money to bring on a new fleet. You are


former Commodore in the Royal Navy. The assertion our defence ability is


diminished is nonsense. It does not matter about the figures, it is the


capability we can project. Having gone through the 2003 Afghanistan


operations, it is simply not true. However loudly shouted our defensive


ability has fallen off the planet, we have challenges around spending,


better, looking after our people. better, looking after our people.


I'm a chief protagonist for that in Parliament. The idea we have a poor


monetary, Inc incapable... That is not... How would the defence be


better under Labour? Labour would be committed to holding firm on the two


percent Nato commitments, putting in place a more balanced capability in


the future. The Tories are saying they will have the two percent plus


money. For example, we are investing huge amounts of money in the two


aircraft carriers which are a good thing in many respects. Forcing the


whole of the Armed Forces to come out we cannot sustain that kind of


percent of our Armed Forces without percent of our Armed Forces without


spending which they are not going to bring. We would have approached


bringing more balance. Does this all boil down to trust? Do people trust


the Tories they will come good? You did say before the last election HMS


Ocean would be safe. Subsequent to the election, it was scrapped. What


I said in the tweet, HMS Ocean would be scrapped, that is nonsense. The


decisions around equipment and procurement go around all the time.


Looking at the threats we face. Spending priorities. When it comes


down to trust, I understand the Labour Party have on their manifesto


commitment, but ultimately you are led by someone who's a member of


CND, he does not believe in it. A vote for Labour for summer like


Plymouth be catastrophic. Here we go, trying to bring the argument up


to Jeremy Corbyn. He is your leader. What signalled does give to the


people in Plymouth that HMS Ocean refitted at 65 million cost in 2015,


a predictive life in 2025, scrapped. What if we get the Tied 26s down


here to replace that. That is the nature of the fence. What signal


does it send around the amphibious capability? Very briefly, people on


the doorstep, they think Jeremy Corbyn 's antinuclear? Does that


make a difference to how people will vote? The Labour Party is absolutely


and seriously committed to an independent nuclear deterrent.


Jeremy Corbyn has a personal view about being antinuclear, and many


people do. He said he was not a pacifist. We had to move on. Many


people see reducing nuclear armaments as a huge thing for our


society and world. It was at the centre of last


year's EU referendum, and in many parts of the South West


it'll be a big issue in this No surprise then that


the Environment Secretary was in the region meeting


fishermen this week. She was one of the stars of the


League campaign. We need to take back control and vote leave on


Thursday. Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom. In Cornwall this


week, hanging out in the fishing communities who voted the way she


did. I gather Andrea Leadsom was in the patch. Not keen to answer


questions about the planned to take back control. A visit intended to be


private, apparently. Some of them are, I'm told. For those who did get


to meet, a chance to remind her promises made. We were front and


centre in the Brexit campaign, prepared to be used then. The


negotiators, pray Brexit, and overfishing. Nervousness that a


leaving present, exclusive use of the fishing waters up to 12 miles


off the British coast could be bargained away. If the final outcome


is the UK Government saving a few jobs in the city of London and and


betraying the producers and fishermen here, the general public


will not be very happy with that. Only yesterday the campaign group


Fishing for Leave was due to meet, with the fishing minister, George


Eustis. The cancellation of the meeting at short notice has caused


some to suppose the government is getting tied up in knots. Somewhere


behind the scenes there is a change in policy. Someone cannot say what


they were intending to say. Rather than saying the situation has


changed, political things are difficult. They have said sorry I


cannot come to the meeting. That seems bad. The fishermen here were


already a bit worried, the cancellation of this weekend's


meeting has unnerved them even more. Some reckon the politicians don't


want to answer difficult questions about something called the London


Convention. Drawn up before we joined the EU, the London Convention


gives other European countries access to the waters between six and


12 miles off the British coast. It could still apply even after we


leave. And that the government is yet to serve notice on the agreement


is seen by some as a potential problem. Perhaps even assign


ministers are not serious about a new fishing deal. If it was me, and


I was in Andrea Leadsom's or George Eustis's shoes, I would have given


notice to clear the ground of any potential trip hazards. Let's be


clear, we have raised that. The fishing minister told us this week a


Conservative government would definitely take back control the


British fishing waters. The fishermen reckon, if you are serious


about taking back control he would have torn up the London Convention?


It is not about tearing it up. The London Convention have the provision


you can give two years notice to leave. Some lawyers would say the


common fisheries policy superseded the agreement. We are looking


closely at all of the issues. As the prime ministers said, we had to be


to make an announcement on this soon. For now Mr Eustis is sticking


to the line he gave us back in March. Whether a commitment to get


rid of the London Convention makes it into the Conservative manifesto


remains to be seen. To discuss this we are joined by the


Ukip candidate in South West Devon, Ian Ross. And from our true arose


studio, the candidate for St Ives, Andrew George. Ian, if we come to


you first, Ukip has launched its policy for fishing, you say you are


completely going to take back control of our waters. Would that


not antagonise the European union before negotiations? No, I think


absolutely not. We're trying to get to the position where we are truly


sovereign and independent country again. Most countries in the world


who have maritime exclusion zones controlled them exclusively. That is


to say, the fishing rights in them are done by those nationals of the


country concerned. You will Tarrabt the London agreement, which means


the 12 miles outside of our coasts, we could start fishing in


straightaway, stop foreign, European vessels fishing. The London


Convention affects fishing in the six to 12 mile zone. The late rest


of the waters up to 200 miles out, the solution zone is governed by the


common fisheries Convention. When we leave the EU, we will drop out of


that. They'll be a scenario where EU ships can come in the six and 12


mile zone. Andrew, we were speaking to fishermen this week, he told us


you personally have been very perceptive to their arguments.


Actually the Liberal Democrat party is not so much. What would you say


to that? Well, in fact the party and myself when I was fisheries


spokesman for the party argued very strong links for the end of the


London Convention. What we need to do is bring fisheries regulations up


to date. Allowing access between the six and 12 mile zone is in fact


rather archaic, as the hysterical entitlement of foreign vessels are


indeed vessels that have been scrapped years ago. And the power


and effectiveness of those vessels coming from France and other


countries into those six and 12 mile zone are not. Should the government


have served notice on this already present this is something which


could have happened years ago, did not require Brexit to negotiate the


six and 12 mile zone. Something which could, and we have been


arguing for years, should have been part of the renegotiation and


modernisation of the common fisheries policy. Does not require


Brexit in any sense, to actually regularise and bring up to date


something. Johnny, as a Conservative, why haven't you done


this? The Prime Minister was asked about this in the last PMQs, before


parliament broke up. I think there will be something on this in a


manifesto. That is my feeling. I have no insight into that. On this I


will plead the fifth. If we sit here in a week's Tymon is not in a


manifesto, let's have a conversation about it. It is clear, you heard


challenge around this area. The challenge around this area. The


Conservative government is committed to the UK fishing. Something which


may be in the Tory manifesto? I don't know. We have been talking


about it the years from the triggering of Article 50 was a


perfect opportunity to clear the slate, taking back for control of


our fisheries, starting the negotiation from there. I am


concerned personally the Tory party are hanging back with their real


feelings until after the election. Part of their negotiating package.


That may not be negotiation that helps and supports our fishermen in


the south-west. That might be part of a bigger deal to help people in


the south-east get their rights for bankers. Could you reply to that?


The idea, we have been through the whole argument about using EU


nationals at negotiating chips, very emotive. All Theresa May and the


government and George Eustis is trying to do is get the best deal


fishermen. You will see more detail fishermen. You will see more detail


on that in the manifesto. Could fishermen suffer as part of getting


a good negotiating deal? I think fishermen have been sold a cruel


hoax. Through the leaving process. You might as well put the reclaiming


of the fishing waters out of a 200 mile limit on the site of a red


campaign bus. There is no way which that can be achieved unless you are


prepared to enforce that with gunboats, and be on a war footing.


What we need is to be very realistic about what can be achieved outside


of the 12 mile limit. It is, the fishermen themselves have been let


down. I have to leave it there. Thank you.


There is a full list of candidates standing on June the 8th on the BBC


website. Now our regular round-up


of the political week Exeter's Labour MP Ben Bradshaw


refused to endorse his own party's league manifesto, when asked about


this week. I have my own manifesto. Support it? I support my Exeter


manifesto. Meanwhile Labour rejected the Green Party's offer not to stand


in Exeter, in exchange for not starting in the Isle of Wight. When


we are told when the election would be, and suddenly moving forward


three years, making a nonsense of democracy for smaller parties.


Secondary schools in Devon say they're cutting hundreds of jobs,


removing the number of courses on offer to balance their books. Not


good enough to say there is not enough money. This is the future of


our country and children. A row erupting over the use of children as


political props, after a visit from Tim Farron. Let's look at this row,


Tim Farren using children as political props. Tim Farron was at a


school which your children attend, and your wife put up some footage,


unhappy enough to stay during protest up the road. In favour of


the Tory party. She tweeted, your children should not be used as


political props. This is something you support. I support my wife. She


said, and I think she has a clear point. During a general election


campaign schools should not be used to launch campaign policies. I


support in that. Everybody is entitled to different view. Even if


it is about school policy. Those children don't have a choice about


being there. I go out on the campaign trail with my children all


the time. I believe people are looking at me, I want them to know


me and my family, know what motivates me. There are pictures of


you sitting with children? During a campaign period, no, that was what


was said. Gareth, we saw Ben Bradshaw there. I am being told,


that is the end of the programme. That is the Sunday holed politics.


Thanks to both my guess. I hand Tories are saying. It is a very


emotive subject and we have run out of time.


On Thursday nominations closed in the 650 parliamentary


seats across the country, so now we know exactly who's


We've been analysing the parties' candidates to find out


what they might tell us about the make-up of the House


Well, we know Theresa May is committed to delivering Brexit and


analysis of Conservative candidates has shown that


in their top 100 target seats, 37 candidates supported leave


during last year's referendum campaign


and 20 supported remain; 43 have not made public


In the last parliament, the vast majority of Labour MPs


were hostile to Jeremy Corbyn so how supportive are Labour


Well, of 50 of Labour's top 100 target seats


17 candidates have expressed support for Mr Corbyn.


20 candidates supported Owen Smith in last year's leadership contest


or have expressed anti-Corbyn sentiment, and


If they won those, the Labour benches would be


marginally more sympathetic to Mr Corbyn than they are now.


What do the figures tell us about where the other


Well, the Lib Dems have decided not to stand against the Greens


in Brighton Pavilion, and are fielding 629


candidates this year - that's two fewer than 2015.


The number of Ukip candidates has fallen dramatically.


They are standing in 247 fewer constituencies than 2015,


throwing their support behind solidly pro-Brexit Tories


in some areas such as Lewes and Norfolk North.


The Greens are fielding 103 fewer candidates


than at the last election, standing down to help


other progressive candidates in some places.


The most liking statistic is the demise in Ukip candidates, is this


their swansong? And I think so. It is remarkable how few Ukip


candidates are standing. It is hard to see they will suddenly revive in


the next couple of years. I think this is probably the end. Frank


Luntz mentioned the fragmentation of the left was a feature of this


election, but also there is the consolidation of the right, and if


you take the things together that could explain why the polls are


where they are. Absolutely, that's precisely what happened at the start


of the 1980s, the right was incredibly united and that's when we


started talking about majorities of over 100 or so. No matter what the


size of Theresa May's majority, it will be the total collapse of Ukip,


but not just because we are now leaving the EU and that was their


only reason for being, but a whole lot of people voted for Ukip because


they felt the Tories were no longer listening. Theresa May has given the


impression that she is listening, and that is the biggest possible


thing that could happen to the Tory vote. Fragmentation of the left,


consolidation of the right? It's one of the lessons that is never learnt,


it happened in the 1980s, it doesn't take much for the whole thing to


fracture so now you have on the centre-left the SNP, the Labour


Party, the Greens, the Liberal Democrats all competing for the same


votes and when you have, fleetingly perhaps, large numbers coalescing on


the right in one party, there is only going to be one outcome. It


happens regularly. It doesn't mean the Tories haven't got their own


fragility. Two years ago, David Cameron and George Osborne the


dominant figures, neither are in Parliament now which is a symptom of


the fragility this election is disguising. Mrs May's position in a


way reminds me of Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s, I won't be outflanked on


the right, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, I won't be outflanked on the


right, so the National Front didn't get through either timed he ran to


the second round on like this time, and now Mrs May on Brexit won't be


outflanked Iver and as a result has seen off right flank. And also she


is looking to the left as well with some of the state interventions.


What was interesting about the analysis you showed a few minutes


ago was the number of Tory candidates who have apparently not


declared which way they voted in the referendum, and you would have


thought if this election was all about Brexit, as some would claim,


that would become an unsustainable position, and actually more it's


about leadership. But the point that I'm now hearing from a number of


Labour candidates that they are seeing Tory leaflets that don't even


have the Tory candidate's name on them, it is just about Theresa May.


I am glad they are keeping to the law because by law they have to put


it on. It has been harder for some of the smaller parties too because


of the speed of the election being called. We have the manifesto is


coming out this week. I think Labour Forshaw on Tuesday, we are not yet


sure when the Tories will bring bears out. I suggest one thing, it


will at least for people like me bring an end to the question you


will have to wait for the manifesto. And Rebecca Long baby will never


have that excuse again, isn't it wonderful! She is not the only one.


When you are trying to take the north and Midlands from Labour, I


would go to one or the other. For me, I can barely hold back my


excitement over the Tory manifesto. This will be, I think, the most


important day for the British government for the next five years.


That wasn't irony there? You actually meant that? I'm not even


being cynical at all on Sunday Politics! This is a huge day and


it's because I think we will see... I don't think Mrs May will play it


safe and I don't think we will get the broadbrush stuff that she might


be advised to do. I think she will lay out precisely what you want to


do over the next five years and take some big risks. Then finally after a


year of this guessing and theorising, we will finally work out


what Mrs May is all about. She will say she doesn't want the next


parliament to be all about Brexit, though she knows that's the next


important thing she has to deliver in some way, so she gets a mandate


for that if the polls are right but she


does have very different ideas from Mr Cameron about how to run a


country. She will I assume one to mandate for what these different


ideas are. Otherwise there is no point in holding an early election.


You will get a majority, but if you get a mandate to carry on


implementing the Cameron and Osborne manifesto it would be utterly


pointless. I agree, it is the pivotal event of the election and it


will be interesting to see the degree to which she expands on the


line which interests me about its time to look at the good that


government can do. Because in a way this moves the debate on in UK


politics from, from 97 the Blair Brown governments were insecure


about arguing about the role of government. Cameron Osborne


government similarly so, so here you have a Labour Party talking about


the role of government and the state, and Tory leader apparently


doing so was well. I think that will be really interesting to see whether


it is fleshed out in any significant way. And it is not a natural Tory


message. Harold Macmillan talked about the role of the state, Ted


Heath Mark two was pretty big on the state, the industrial policy and so


on, and even if it is not thought to be that Tory, does she get away with


it because she deliver such a big victory if that's what she does


deliver? Just inject a little note of scepticism, I wonder how much of


this is authentically Theresa May. I was interested to and talk to


someone who used to sit in cabinet meetings during which Theresa May


never expressed an opinion on anything outside the Home Office


briefs. Other ministers were roving all over their colleagues' briefs.


So where are the ideas coming from? I think we can point to Nick


Timothy. One of her closest advisers in Downing Street. It will be


interesting to see how that evolves. On Thursday I think we will all be


talking about something called Urdington Toryism. Urdington is the


suburb of Birmingham where Nick Timothy comes from, who is very much


Theresa May's policy brain and leading inspiration. Urdington


Toryism is about connecting the party with traditional working class


voters, and their belief to do that is not just taking away government


out of their lives but showing them that government can actually help


their lives. It can be a force for good to rebuild the trust. A lot of


what Mrs May talks about is all... It is talk and then a lot of it


suddenly goes by the wayside. What happened to worker directors on the


boards. It is designed to appeal to that constituency and then nothing


happens. She had an excuse before in the sense that it wasn't in the 2015


manifesto and she had a small majority so therefore she arguably


had to water down some of the stuff for example in her Tory conference


speech, which had a lot of this active government material in it. If


she puts it in the manifesto, it is a sign she plans to do it and will


have no excuse if she then gets nervous afterwards because it will


be in there. If it wasn't for Brexit, this great overwhelming


issue, I think this election will be seen as quite a significant


development in terms of an argument around the role of government,


much-needed. But Brexit unfortunately overshadows it all. As


much as we like our arguments over the role of government we will hear


strong and stable, stable and strong ad nauseam, aren't we? Absolutely,


and we heard the same old lines from the Labour Party as well so they are


all at it. It will be a fascinating week, stop talking it down! Thanks


to our panel. The Daily Politics will be


back on BBC Two at noon I'll be back here at the same time


on BBC One next Sunday. Remember - if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics. When it came to my TV habits,


I'd watch anything... But now I can sign in online


and get more of what I love. I'm kept up to date


with the shows I love and I get suggestions


on subjects I'll like. A new personalised BBC


is on its way. To tailor the benefits to you,


sign in and introduce yourself.


Download Subtitles