28/05/2017 Sunday Politics South West

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.