Browse content similar to 28/05/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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.
In the South West - the Conservative council leader
who says Mrs May should stick to her manifesto on social care
and not put a limit what we're asked to pay for it.
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
Hello, I'm Lucie Fisher. minutes, the Week Ahead.
Coming up on the Sunday Politics here in the South West...
As Boris comes back to Cornwall, the Brexit questions
And for the next 20 minutes, I'm joined by the Ukip candidate
for Truro and Falmouth, Duncan Odgers, and Labour candidate
Sue Dann, who's standing in Plymouth Moor View.
Let's start with Jeremy Corbyn's speech making a link
between Britain's military action abroad and the risk
The Labour leader's comments prompted a strong response
from local Tory candidate and former army officer Johnny Mercer.
I just do not accept that doing nothing is always the answer.
I think Jeremy Corbyn's speech today, it belies
These terrorists, they use that narrative after they have done
something, you know, things like the World Trade Center,
It's just making things up to get elected, and the fact that this guy
could be Prime Minister in two weeks is just extraordinary.
Strong words. Do you stand by your leader's comments? I do, because
when you listen to what Jeremy Corbyn said, he said that our
foreign policy is part of a narrative, so when we go into other
countries like Iraq or Afghanistan or what is happening in Syria or
Libya, there is a void, a space the terrorists are getting into, and
what we need to do is make sure that the close that, and we have to do
that in many ways. So he is not saying you should do nothing? Now,
he is not saying that, he absolutely he is not saying that, he absolutely
acknowledges we have a foreign policy where we have to support can
do things which support other countries in their fight against
terror. Meanwhile at the Ukip manifesto
launch a question on the topic from the BBC's Laura Kuennsberg drew
outbursts from the cloud including south west Ukip
MEP William Dartmouth. It sounds like you're near as dammit
blaming the Prime Minister for this attack and the circumstances that
led to it. This kind of heckling pleasing to
the hands of opposing parties, it sets you up as roadie. That is the
wrong word, I think it proves with Ukip, the passionate politics we
believe in. See you think it is acceptable? I think it was a little
rude to interrupt, but I believe the passions can overcome people on a
subject. SWAT about this question Laura was suggesting, that Paul
Nuttall was effectively blaming Theresa May for the attack, and they
consequence leading up to it? I do not think he was blaming her, that
is a slant on the question, he was talking about the policies on
various governments that have not protected people effectively.
One of the South West's Conservative council leaders has criticised his
party's apparent U-turn on whether to limit what we're each
Theresa May now says she'd consult on a cap.
But the leader of Teignbridge District Council says
the Conservative manifesto suggestion of allowing the state
to take everything but our last ?100,000 would be a fair way
to spread the cost of care between generations.
At St Andrews House care home in Ashburton, much talk
about Mrs May's position on social care.
I think she is hard, Theresa May, you know...
Well, I think you've got to know a lot about politics
I mean, a lot of people talk as if they understand it,
He is also a Conservative councillor.
But it's not just his residents who don't understand how much
a Conservative government would charge them for their care.
I mean, there is an argument to say that a cap is a better thing.
Or do we go for ?100,000 in the reverse, really?
So you either keep your 100,000 or it is capped at 100,000.
This week, Theresa May said there could be a cap
There would be a consultation, she said.
And that consultation will include an absolute limit
on the amount people have to pay for their care costs.
But no mention of a cap in the Conservative manifesto,
which said we would be charged up to our last ?100,000.
Secretary of State, can we just ask you very quickly
When did Theresa May change her mind?
The way that modern care homes are trying to support people living
Jeremy Christophers supported the manifesto policy
and was disappointed when his leader appeared to water it down.
If it were me, I would probably have stuck to it and come up
with reasoned arguments and evidence as to why this works better
for people than the previous scheme which only delivered ?23,000
This delivers ?100,000, but for whatever reason it is not
a comfortable conversation with the public at this time.
But it will have to be held sometime.
The Lib Dems are promising a dedicated care tax and a
Labour is offering a national care service with an extra 8 billion
for social care over the next five years.
Ukip pledges an extra 2 billion for social care.
The residents here hope the debate about how much they have to pay
And to discuss this we're joined by the Conservative Candidate
Welcome. It is confusing people this issue. Can you clean it up, will
there be a cap on what people have too pay on social care if the Tories
wind? That is going to be a consultation on a cap. What is
important to remember is the policy is about preserving ?100,000 of
people's assets rather than 23,000 at the moment. And making sure that
is an easier decision about whether to move into residential care or
not. That will not know necessarily lead to the necessity of selling a
home. Do you think there should be a cap? We need to look at it and I
think it should be a progressive system. I think it should be capped
and I think it will be, but it depends on how we want to do that.
We have to make sure there is bitterness between the generations,
but also fairness for those who have scrimped and saved and put all their
money into a House throughout their lives. How can you have a Papin the
?100,000 limit? It isn't the same thing. ?100,000 is the preservation
of assets. A cap is an entirely separate thing. SWAT is the
Conservative Party's policy on this? To have a consultation to look at
all the aspects of it, to see you how to make it as progressive as we
can, as they are as we can make it. Has that cleared it up for you? Not
really. This is a U-turn and policy, this is a crisis created by the
Conservatives over the last few years. ?4.6 billion has been taken
out of the social care budget, and this has been dropped in on two
local councils who have not been able to fund social care properly.
Celebrities pledging to spend a billion extra on social care over
the next five years. How do you pay for that? And an extra billion into
the first year as well. But being able to find it is a different
thing. We have been clear in how we have costed the manifesto, the
day-to-day funding of things we have to do have been costed by increased
taxes elsewhere. We have to pay for the national social care service
that looks after our elderly as we get older. And it cost to it.
Duncan, Ukip pledging to spend 2 billion extra on social care. Is
that enough? Labour said 2 billion, when you match it up with funding,
will make a great deal to social care. We have already listen to the
Conservatives who say that consultation means once we are
elected we will do what we like anyway. But she has tried to be more
honest than put up some ideas upfront. Green butterfat honesty on
a complete U-turn to save bolts? -- but is that honesty? She is
absolutely clear that we have to address this issue, the sort of
money we have been hearing about is not going to be enough from the
Labour point of view. That will just pay for raising the minimum wage.
Aside from that, if the Tories election campaign turning into a
shambles? A newspaper said... Should you have gone off message? Theresa
May is the only person who can be trusted to pursue a good and
constructive Brexit process. Was at a mistake, then, to talk about fox
hunting and social care issues? Social care issues underfunding
depend on as having a strong economy, and we will only get there
if we have Theresa May at the negotiating table. Is that something
you're hearing, that Brexit is the key issue? No, in Plymouth the key
issue is things that affects peoples lives. I talk more about the NHS,
funding for schools, more about making sure that people do not have
to go to food banks and they are getting paid a proper living wage,
which the Labour Party will deliver on, I talk about winter fuel
allowance, why we're not looking after pensions. Those are the issues
that are really affecting lives on the doorstep. On the U-turn, we need
to have a strong and stable leader, and it seems that whenever Theresa
May is put under any pressure about a policy that is going to be
difficult to deliver, she changes her mind. Is this the strong
negotiating skills we will need for the Brexit table? Is this not a
strong and stable leader? I know Theresa May well, and she is a
careful and deliberate politician. She will absolutely fight for us in
the negotiations. Thank you very much for joining us.
The Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was electioneering
It was the first time he'd been to the county since his visit
in the Brexit battlebus, and the people of St Ives were keen
to ask him what money Cornwall can hope for after we leave.
By 2020, Cornwall will have received more than ?1.3 billion
Beneficiaries have included the Eden Project, a new university
for the county, and the roll-out of superfast broadband.
One of the next big projects is the dualling of one of the last
long stretches of single carriageway on Cornwall's Main
After last year's Brexit vote, the government moved reasonably
quickly to guarantee this latest tranche of funding until 2020.
What we're doing here is guaranteeing that projects that
have already been signed or that are going to be signed
over the coming months, even if the payment of those funds
runs on beyond the time we leave the EU, will be guaranteed
by the British Government to the recipients.
Beyond 2020, if Cornwall was still in the EU,
it would almost certainly qualify for another large chunk of cash.
When the Prime Minister visited Cornwall earlier
in the election campaign, I asked her if the Conservatives
would replace that with the UK Government money.
It is not just about the issue of funding, it is about our modern
It's about ensuring we are promoting and encouraging the growth
of the economy across the whole of the United Kingdom,
This week Foreign Secretary and Brexit pin-up Boris Johnson
You don't want to leave the European Union.
You're doing everything you possibly can to screw it up.
Do you really think Theresa May, who does U-turn after U-turn,
who has actually done one again today, is going to do
Mr Johnson was at least happy to talk to the BBC,
but not necessarily to clarify the funding issue.
Half the money that comes back under our control is currently
already spent in the UK, that will continue to be spent.
There will be another ?10 billion coming back,
that will be additional cash that we can spend on priorities such
as the NHS and Cornwall and all sorts of things.
All being well, the EU funded work to dual the A30 from Carl
and crossed to Chadlington will begin in 2019 - 2020.
Precisely the time at which the road ahead for similar projects
And to discuss this we're joined by the Lib Dem candidate
in Truro and Falmouth, Rob Nolan.
Welcome to the programme. How much of a problem is it for the Lib Dems
that Cornwall voted to leave, yet you're asking for a second
referendum? Brexit has the potential to be an economic disaster for
Cornwall. We receive million pounds a year -- ?100 million a year from
the EU to fund the University, universities, to get us into an
exciting IT economy. Do you think if there was a second referendum,
Cornwall may vote differently? Well we need to know what the deal is. We
need to know we will keep the funding beyond 2020, and what the
deal is. There are rumours that Mrs May might be prepared to give away
fishing rights for banking fishing rights for banking
concessions. Our fishermen voted to get rid of their water. They will be
feeling betrayed everything she gives it away to help bankers in
London. Duncan, Brexit could be a disaster for Cornwall and its
fishermen. It could be, which is why Ukip are holding them to account.
Theresa May has only promised goal to 12 miles, and she has not said
she will take the full 200 miles back. -- has only promised to go to
12 miles. What will happen after 2020, when there is no more European
funding? As far as Ukip is concerned, the money that went to
Europe and was given back to us that we did not have a choice to choose,
the money will be available to put back into Cornwall, which is down to
the elected representatives in London to ensure that happened. Does
that sound right to you? We do not hold a lot of faith in our elected
representatives in London. We need the funding and have been told we
will come back to you until you what we have negotiated. We want a second
referendum on the deal. I do not trust Theresa May to settle this. I
do not trust parliament, who seem to do not trust parliament, who seem to
falling into line. We need the falling into line. We need the
good deal, paid enough, they will good deal, paid enough, they will
vote to continue. Ukip is the best party to scrutinise that? I do not
trust Ukip at all. So why did you approach Ukip to stand as a
candidate in 2015? I did not, that is all I. What would Labour do for
Cornwall for parts who currently receive a European funding? We need
to have a vision of what a strong Brexit means, we need to make sure
we protect jobs, that we have prosperity, that our businesses in
to have strong economy and they can to have strong economy and they can
invest into companies now. But can you guarantee money passed 2020? Is
Cornwall going to lose out? I do not have a magic wand. I look at the
money going into Cornwall from Europe and it is a big sum of money.
So we need to know from the government what is going to happen,
and I totally agree with you about the funding coming out of Cornwall
and other areas and how it is going to be replaced, and we have not got
that vision, but what we need to that vision, but what we need to
know is how the government will keep the jobs, prosperity and the economy
growing in the south-west because it is dependent on funding. The
government talks about a value for money test. Has the money that came
in from Europe been wasted? We have the highest number of start-up
businesses in the UK, businesses coming along. I went to the Cornish
business there, and they described the area as a potential silicon
valley. There is real potential to grow the economy down there. We need
that money, and when the government says there are going to test it,
really the mean cuts. That is all they ever do to Cornwall, they take
away 25 million out of schools, underfund our NHS, and value for
money means cuts. But Cornwall voted to leave. Did they bite the hand
that feeds you? The issue here is we do not have an MEP. We do not have a
Cornish MEP that could have been explaining the benefits of being in
the EU. We have a healthy scepticism of central government, and Russell
seems a long way away. Is it a hard sale to get those who voted to leave
to agree to a second referendum? I think they would be happy to get a
second chance on the deal? Bid -- a second chance at the deal. We have
voted to get out, let us get out. We never voted for the second
referendum. We need to discuss the deal, get discussing it. In Falmouth
are worrying about their funding being cut. -- a school in Falmouth.
of general election candidates on the BBC website.
We also have an election special here on BBC One on Tuesday night.
Now our regular round-up of the political week in 60 seconds.
Cornwall Council elects Lib Dem Adam Painter
as its new leader in partnership with the independence.
Cornwall stands to lose more than any other area through Brexit,
so it is really important that we stand together.
Armed police will patrol the streets of the Southwest for first time.
It's a response to the Manchester attack.
It is normal patrolling, but it is now overtly
But I would ask the public to be reassured and not put off by it.
Unpaid council tax has lost councils in the south-west more
than ?150 million over the last five years.
Why don't they pay if they are working?
Councils are having real problems and they are having to put council
tax up to much higher levels than they used to.
And the region's Headteachers are sending out thousands of letters
calling on parents to challenge election candidates
It just encourages you to go and ask the right questions
Let us look at the issue of school funding. Our headteachers right to
politicise this issue? Do you think they were right to send out
thousands of letters to ask parents to get in touch with the election
candidate and ask questions on the doorstep? Yes, I do. The last Labour
government made education the core of its manifesto, and put a lot of
money into schools. I am a local school governor, and we had to make
redundancies at the beginning of the year because of school funding
crisis. And so yes, it is political, but it is our children's future. We
should be able to stand up and say why we're cutting money from
schools, and we would not do that. Duncan, does that sound like Ukip's
idea? Investment in schools is important. How can you cut
immigration if you're not educating your own people to provide the
skills we need for the future? We're cutting food for primary school
children, which helps their education. 6.9 p for breakfast is
not enough. We have to invest in the children because they are the
future, and skills is what we need. We have run out of ten. -- run out
of 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. As voters prepare to go to the polls
to choose who represents them the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon joins
me for the Andrew Neil Interviews. One minute to get the
food on the plate. ..team them up with
a Michelin starred chef, putting their reputation
on the line. ..which team will have the
recipe for success? One minute to get the
food on the plate.
Jo Coburn and Lucie Fisher with the latest political news, interviews and debate.
Professor of politics John Curtice, minister for security Ben Wallace, shadow justice minister Richard Burgon, author and commentator Douglas Murray, and director of Inspire (counter-extremism and women's rights organization) Sara Khan are among the guests.
Journalists Steve Richards, Tim Marshall and Julia Hartley-Brewer make up the political panel.