:00:16. > :00:20.It's Sunday Morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.
:00:21. > :00:22.Labour attacks Conservative plans for social care and to means-test
:00:23. > :00:25.So can Jeremy Corbyn eat into the Tory lead
:00:26. > :00:31.Theresa May says her party's manifesto is all about fairness.
:00:32. > :00:35.We'll be speaking to a Conservative cabinet minister about the plans.
:00:36. > :00:38.The polls have always shown healthy leads for the Conservatives.
:00:39. > :00:42.But, now we've seen the manifestos, is Labour narrowing the gap?
:00:43. > :00:46.In the South: Take three candidates, a jury of twelve local voters,
:00:47. > :00:49.stir in some controversial topics like transport and
:00:50. > :01:03.And with me - as always - the best and the brightest political
:01:04. > :01:05.panel in the business: Sam Coates, Isabel Oakeshott
:01:06. > :01:07.and Steve Richards - they'll be tweeting throughout
:01:08. > :01:09.the programme, and you can get involved by using
:01:10. > :01:17.Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says pensioners will be up to ?330 a year
:01:18. > :01:29.worse off under plans outlined in the Conservative manifesto.
:01:30. > :01:35.The Work Pensions Secretary Damian Green has said his party will not
:01:36. > :01:39.rethink their plans to fund social care in England. Under the plans in
:01:40. > :01:46.the Conservative manifesto, nobody with assets of less than ?100,000,
:01:47. > :01:51.would have to pay for care. Labour has attacked the proposal, and John
:01:52. > :01:54.McDonnell, Labour's Shadow Chancellor, said this morning that
:01:55. > :01:57.there needs to be more cross-party consensus.
:01:58. > :01:59.That's why we supported Dilnot, but we also supported
:02:00. > :02:03.Because we've got to have something sustainable over generations,
:02:04. > :02:05.so that's why we've said to the Conservative Party,
:02:06. > :02:08.Let's go back to that cross-party approach that actually
:02:09. > :02:12.I just feel we've all been let down by what's come
:02:13. > :02:22.Sam, is Labour beginning to get their argument across? What we had
:02:23. > :02:26.last week was bluntly what felt like not very Lynton Crosby approved
:02:27. > :02:30.Conservative manifesto. What I mean by that is that it looks like there
:02:31. > :02:35.are things that will cause political difficulties for the party over this
:02:36. > :02:39.campaign. I've been talking to MPs and ministers who acknowledge that
:02:40. > :02:45.the social care plan is coming up on the doorstep. It has cut through
:02:46. > :02:49.very quickly, and it is worrying and deterring some voters. Not just
:02:50. > :03:01.pensioners, that people who are looking to inherit in the future.
:03:02. > :03:03.They are all asking how much they could lose that they wouldn't have
:03:04. > :03:05.lost before. A difficult question for the party to answer, given that
:03:06. > :03:11.they don't want to give too much away now. Was this a mistake, or a
:03:12. > :03:18.sign of the Conservatives' confidence? It has the hallmarks of
:03:19. > :03:22.something that has been cobbled together in a very unnaturally short
:03:23. > :03:27.time frame for putting a manifesto together. We have had mixed messages
:03:28. > :03:30.from the Tory MPs who have been out on the airwaves this morning as to
:03:31. > :03:35.whether they will consult on it whether it is just a starting point.
:03:36. > :03:42.That said, there is still three weeks to go, and most of the Tory
:03:43. > :03:45.party this morning feel this is a little light turbulence rather than
:03:46. > :03:49.anything that leaves the destination of victory in doubt. It it flips the
:03:50. > :03:53.normal politics. The Tories are going to make people who have a
:03:54. > :04:00.reasonable amount of assets pay for their social care. What is wrong
:04:01. > :04:03.with that? First, total credit for them for not pretending that all
:04:04. > :04:08.this can be done by magic, which is what normally happens in an
:04:09. > :04:13.election. The party will say, we will review this for the 95th time
:04:14. > :04:17.in the following Parliament, so they have no mandate to do anything and
:04:18. > :04:21.so do not do anything. It is courageous to do it. It is
:04:22. > :04:27.electorally risky, for the reasons that you suggest, that they pass the
:04:28. > :04:33.target their own natural supporter. And there is a sense that this is
:04:34. > :04:38.rushed through, in the frenzy to get it done in time. I think the ending
:04:39. > :04:44.of the pooling of risk and putting the entire burden on in inverted
:04:45. > :04:52.commas the victim, because you cannot insure Fritz, is against the
:04:53. > :04:56.spirit of a lot of the rest of the manifesto, and will give them huge
:04:57. > :05:05.problems if they try to implement it in the next Parliament. Let's have a
:05:06. > :05:09.look at the polls. Nearly five weeks ago, on Tuesday the 18th of April,
:05:10. > :05:14.Theresa May called the election. At that point, this was the median
:05:15. > :05:20.average of the recent polls. The Conservatives had an 18 point lead
:05:21. > :05:29.over Labour on 25%. Ukip and the Liberal Democrats were both on 18%.
:05:30. > :05:33.A draft of Labour's manifesto was leaked to the press. In the
:05:34. > :05:36.intervening weeks, support for the Conservatives and Labour had
:05:37. > :05:42.increased, that it had decreased for the Lib Dems and Ukip. Last Tuesday
:05:43. > :05:48.came the launch of the official Labour manifesto. By that time,
:05:49. > :05:53.Labour support had gone up by another 2%. The Lib Dems and Ukip
:05:54. > :05:58.had slipped back slightly. Later in the week came the manifestos from
:05:59. > :06:02.the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. This morning, for more polls. This
:06:03. > :06:10.is how the parties currently stand on average. Labour are now on 34%,
:06:11. > :06:14.up 4% since the launch of their manifesto. The Conservatives are
:06:15. > :06:21.down two points since last Tuesday. Ukip and the Lib Dems are both
:06:22. > :06:26.unchanged on 8% and 5%. You can find this poll tracker on the BBC
:06:27. > :06:31.website, see how it was calculated, and see the results of national
:06:32. > :06:35.polls over the last two years. So Isabel, is this the Tories' wobbly
:06:36. > :06:40.weekend or the start of the narrowing? This is still an
:06:41. > :06:46.extremely healthy lead for the Tories. At the start of this
:06:47. > :06:52.campaign, most commentators expected to things to happen. First, the Lib
:06:53. > :06:57.Dems would have a significant surge. That hasn't happened. Second, Labour
:06:58. > :07:02.would crash and plummet. Instead they are in the health of the low
:07:03. > :07:08.30s. I wonder if that tells you something about the tribal nature of
:07:09. > :07:13.the Labour vote, and the continuing problems with the Tory brand. I
:07:14. > :07:18.would say that a lot of Tory MPs wouldn't be too unhappy if Labour's
:07:19. > :07:24.result isn't quite as bad as has been anticipated. They don't want
:07:25. > :07:31.Corbyn to go anywhere. If the latest polls were to be the result on June
:07:32. > :07:36.the 8th, Mr Corbyn may not be in a rush to go anywhere. I still think
:07:37. > :07:41.it depends on the number of seats. If there is a landslide win, I
:07:42. > :07:47.think, one way or another, he will not stay. If it is much narrower, he
:07:48. > :07:52.has grounds for arguing he has done better than anticipated. The polls
:07:53. > :07:57.are very interesting. People compare this with 83. In 83, the Tory lead
:07:58. > :08:10.widened consistently throughout the campaign. There was the SDP -
:08:11. > :08:13.Liberal Alliance doing well in the polls. Here, the Lib Dems don't seem
:08:14. > :08:15.to be doing that. So the parallels with 83 don't really stack up. But
:08:16. > :08:18.let's see what happens. Still early days for the a lot of people are
:08:19. > :08:23.saying this is the result of the social care policy. We don't really
:08:24. > :08:27.know that. How do you beat them? In the last week or so, there's been
:08:28. > :08:32.the decision by some to hold their nose and vote Labour, who haven't
:08:33. > :08:36.done so before. Probably the biggest thing in this election is how the
:08:37. > :08:43.Right has reunited behind Theresa May. That figure for Ukip is
:08:44. > :08:49.incredibly small. She has brought those Ukip voters behind her, and
:08:50. > :08:53.that could be the decisive factor in many seats, rather than the Labour
:08:54. > :08:58.share of the boat picking up a bit or down a bit, depending on how
:08:59. > :09:01.turbulent the Tory manifesto makes it. Thank you for that.
:09:02. > :09:04.We've finally got our hands on the manifestos of the two main
:09:05. > :09:06.parties and, for once, voters can hardly complain that
:09:07. > :09:10.So, just how big is the choice on offer to the public?
:09:11. > :09:12.Since the Liberal Democrats and SNP have ruled out
:09:13. > :09:14.coalitions after June 8th, Adam Fleming compares the Labour
:09:15. > :09:17.Welcome to the BBC's election centre.
:09:18. > :09:21.Four minutes from now, when Big Ben strikes 10.00,
:09:22. > :09:25.we can legally reveal the contents of this, our exit poll.
:09:26. > :09:28.18 days to go, and the BBC's election night studio
:09:29. > :09:37.This is where David Dimbleby will sit, although there is no chair yet.
:09:38. > :09:41.The parties' policies are now the finished product.
:09:42. > :09:43.In Bradford, Jeremy Corbyn vowed a bigger state,
:09:44. > :09:46.the end of austerity, no more tuition fees.
:09:47. > :09:55.The Tory campaign, by contrast, is built on one word - fear.
:09:56. > :10:02.Down the road in Halifax, Theresa May kept a promise to get
:10:03. > :10:05.immigration down to the tens of thousands, and talked
:10:06. > :10:09.of leadership and tough choices in uncertain times.
:10:10. > :10:15.Strengthen my hand as I fight for Britain, and stand with me
:10:16. > :10:21.And, with confidence in ourselves and a unity
:10:22. > :10:28.of purpose in our country, let us go forward together.
:10:29. > :10:31.Let's look at the Labour and Conservative
:10:32. > :10:37.On tax, Labour would introduce a 50p rate for top earners.
:10:38. > :11:01.The Conservatives ditched their triple lock, giving them
:11:02. > :11:03.freedom to put up income tax and national insurance,
:11:04. > :11:06.although they want to keep the overall tax burden the same.
:11:07. > :11:08.Labour offered a major overhaul of the country's wiring,
:11:09. > :11:10.with a pledge to renationalise infrastructure, like power,
:11:11. > :11:13.The Conservatives said that would cost a fortune,
:11:14. > :11:15.but provided few details for the cost of their policies.
:11:16. > :11:17.Labour have simply become a shambles, and, as yesterday's
:11:18. > :11:20.manifesto showed, their numbers simply do not add up.
:11:21. > :11:22.What have they got planned for health and social care?
:11:23. > :11:26.The Conservatives offered more cash for the NHS,
:11:27. > :11:29.reaching an extra ?8 billion a year by the end of the parliament.
:11:30. > :11:33.Labour promised an extra ?30 billion over the course of the same period,
:11:34. > :11:39.plus free hospital parking and more pay for staff.
:11:40. > :11:46.The Conservatives would increase the value of assets you could
:11:47. > :11:50.protect from the cost of social care to ?100,000, but your home would be
:11:51. > :11:51.added to the assessment of your wealth,
:11:52. > :11:55.There was a focus on one group of voters in particular
:11:56. > :12:01.Labour would keep the triple lock, which guarantees that pensions go up
:12:02. > :12:07.The Tories would keep the increase in line
:12:08. > :12:10.with inflation or earnings, a double lock.
:12:11. > :12:13.The Conservatives would end of winter fuel payments
:12:14. > :12:16.for the richest, although we don't know exactly who that would be,
:12:17. > :12:25.This is a savage attack on vulnerable pensioners,
:12:26. > :12:29.particularly those who are just about managing.
:12:30. > :12:32.It is disgraceful, and we are calling upon the Conservative Party
:12:33. > :12:39.When it comes to leaving the European Union, Labour say
:12:40. > :12:42.they'd sweep away the government's negotiating strategy,
:12:43. > :12:45.secure a better deal and straightaway guaranteed the rights
:12:46. > :12:51.The Tories say a big majority would remove political uncertainty
:12:52. > :13:03.Jeremy Vine's due here in two and a half weeks.
:13:04. > :13:09.I'm joined now by David Gauke, who is Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
:13:10. > :13:16.Welcome back to the programme. The Tories once promised a cap on social
:13:17. > :13:23.care costs. Why have you abandoned that? We've looked at it, and there
:13:24. > :13:28.are couple of proposals with the Dilnot proposal. Much of the benefit
:13:29. > :13:32.would go to those inheriting larger estates. The second point was it was
:13:33. > :13:38.hoped that a cap would stimulate the larger insurance products that would
:13:39. > :13:44.fill the gap, but there is no sign that those products are emerging.
:13:45. > :13:48.Without a cap, you will not get one. We have come forward with a new
:13:49. > :13:52.proposal which we think is fairer, provide more money for social care,
:13:53. > :13:57.which is very important and is one of the big issues we face as a
:13:58. > :14:03.country. It is right that we face those big issues. Social care is
:14:04. > :14:10.one, getting a good Brexit deal is another. This demonstrates that
:14:11. > :14:13.Theresa May has an ambition to lead a government that addresses those
:14:14. > :14:19.big long-term issues. Looking at social care. If you have assets,
:14:20. > :14:23.including your home, of over ?100,000, you have to pay for all
:14:24. > :14:27.your social care costs. Is that fair? It is right that for the
:14:28. > :14:33.services that are provided to you, that that is paid out of your
:14:34. > :14:37.assets, subject to two really important qualifications. First, you
:14:38. > :14:44.shouldn't have your entire estate wiped out. At the moment, if you are
:14:45. > :14:49.in residential care, it can be wiped out ?223,000. If you are in
:14:50. > :14:56.domiciliary care, it can be out to ?23,000, plus you're domiciliary.
:14:57. > :15:00.Nobody should be forced to sell their house in their lifetime if
:15:01. > :15:02.they or their spouse needs long-term care. Again, we have protected that
:15:03. > :15:12.in the proposals we set out. But the state will basically take a
:15:13. > :15:17.chunk of your house when you die and they sell. In an essence it is a
:15:18. > :15:21.stealth inheritance tax on everything above ?100,000. But we
:15:22. > :15:25.have those two important protections. I am including that. It
:15:26. > :15:30.is a stealth inheritance tax. We have to face up to the fact that
:15:31. > :15:34.there are significant costs that we face as a country in terms of health
:15:35. > :15:38.and social careful. Traditionally, politicians don't address those
:15:39. > :15:44.issues, particularly during election campaigns. I think it is too Theresa
:15:45. > :15:47.May's credit that we are being straightforward with the British
:15:48. > :15:50.people and saying that we face this long-term challenge. Our manifesto
:15:51. > :15:54.was about the big challenges that we face, one of which was
:15:55. > :15:58.intergenerational fairness and one of which was delivering a strong
:15:59. > :16:05.economy and making sure that we can do that. But in the end, someone is
:16:06. > :16:09.going to have to pay for this. It is going to have to be a balance
:16:10. > :16:11.between the general taxpayer and those receiving the services. We
:16:12. > :16:15.think we have struck the right balance with this proposal. But it
:16:16. > :16:19.is entirely on the individual. People watching this programme, if
:16:20. > :16:26.they have a fair amount of assets, not massive, including the home,
:16:27. > :16:30.they will need to pay for everything themselves until their assets are
:16:31. > :16:35.reduced to ?100,000. It is not a balance, you're putting everything
:16:36. > :16:41.on the original two individual. At the moment, for those in residential
:16:42. > :16:46.care, they have to pay everything until 20 3000. -- everything on the
:16:47. > :16:50.individual. But now they will face more. Those in individual care are
:16:51. > :16:53.seeing their protection going up by four times as much, so that is
:16:54. > :16:57.eliminating unfairness. Why should those in residential care be in a
:16:58. > :17:03.worse position than those receiving domiciliary care? But as I say, that
:17:04. > :17:06.money has to come from somewhere and we are sitting at a proper plan for
:17:07. > :17:10.it. While also made the point that we are more likely to be able to
:17:11. > :17:14.have a properly functioning social care market if we have a strong
:17:15. > :17:17.economy, and to have a strong economy we need to deliver a good
:17:18. > :17:22.deal on Brexit and I think Theresa May is capable of doing that. You
:17:23. > :17:27.have said that before. But if you have a heart attack in old age, the
:17:28. > :17:30.NHS will take care of you. If you have dementia, you now have to pay
:17:31. > :17:35.for the care of yourself. Is that they are? It is already the case
:17:36. > :17:39.that if you have long-term care costs come up as I say, if you are
:17:40. > :17:44.in residential care you pay for all of it until the last ?23,000, but if
:17:45. > :17:48.you are in domiciliary care, excluding your housing assets, but
:17:49. > :17:54.all of your other assets get used up until you are down to ?23,000 a
:17:55. > :18:01.year. And I think it is right at this point that a party that aspires
:18:02. > :18:05.to run this country for the long-term, to address the long-term
:18:06. > :18:09.challenges we have is a country, for us to be clear that we need to
:18:10. > :18:16.deliver this. Because if it is not paid for it this way, if it goes and
:18:17. > :18:20.falls on the general taxpayer, the people who feel hard pressed by the
:18:21. > :18:24.amount of income tax and VAT they pay, frankly we have to say to them,
:18:25. > :18:28.those taxes will go up if we do not address it. But they might go up
:18:29. > :18:34.anyway. The average house price in your part of the country is just shy
:18:35. > :18:38.of ?430,000, so if you told your own constituents that they might have to
:18:39. > :18:43.spend ?300,000 of their assets on social care before the state steps
:18:44. > :18:48.in to help...? As I said earlier, nobody will be forced to pay during
:18:49. > :18:54.their lifetime. Nobody will be forced to sell their houses. We are
:18:55. > :18:58.providing that protection because of the third premium. Which makes it a
:18:59. > :19:04.kind of death tax, doesn't it? Which is what you use to rail against.
:19:05. > :19:08.What it is people paying for the services they have paid out of their
:19:09. > :19:12.assets. But with that very important protection that nobody is going to
:19:13. > :19:17.be wiped out in the way that has happened up until now, down to the
:19:18. > :19:21.last three years. But when Labour propose this, George Osborne called
:19:22. > :19:25.it a death tax and you are now proposing a stealth death tax
:19:26. > :19:31.inheritance tax. Labour's proposals were very different. It is the same
:19:32. > :19:38.effect. Labour's were hitting everyone with an inheritance tax. We
:19:39. > :19:41.are saying that there are -- that there is a state contribution but
:19:42. > :19:47.the public receiving the services will have to pay for it out of
:19:48. > :19:51.assets, which have grown substantially. And which they might
:19:52. > :19:55.now lose to social care. But I would say that people in Hertfordshire pay
:19:56. > :20:00.a lot in income tracks, national insurance and VAT, and this is my
:20:01. > :20:04.bet is going to have to come from somewhere. Well, they are now going
:20:05. > :20:09.to pay a lot of tax and pay for social care. Turning to immigration,
:20:10. > :20:14.you promised to get net migration down to 100,020 ten. You failed. You
:20:15. > :20:18.promised again in 2015 and you are feeling again. Why should voters
:20:19. > :20:23.trust you a third time? It is very clear that only the Conservative
:20:24. > :20:28.Party has an ambition to control immigration and to bring it down. An
:20:29. > :20:31.ambition you have failed to deliver. There are, of course, factors that
:20:32. > :20:36.come into play. For example a couple of years ago we were going through a
:20:37. > :20:39.period when the UK was creating huge numbers of jobs but none of our
:20:40. > :20:42.European neighbours were doing anything like it. Not surprisingly,
:20:43. > :20:49.that feeds through into the immigration numbers that we see. But
:20:50. > :20:55.it is right that we have that ambition because I do not believe it
:20:56. > :20:58.is sustainable to have hundreds of thousands net migration, you're
:20:59. > :21:02.after year after year, and only Theresa May of the Conservative
:21:03. > :21:06.Party is willing to address that. It has gone from being a target to an
:21:07. > :21:10.ambition, and I am pretty sure in a couple of years it will become an
:21:11. > :21:16.untimed aspiration. Is net migration now higher or lower than when you
:21:17. > :21:21.came to power in 2010? I think it is higher at the moment. Let's look at
:21:22. > :21:26.the figures. And there they are. You are right, it is higher, so after
:21:27. > :21:33.six years in power, promising to get it down to 100,000, it is higher. So
:21:34. > :21:37.if that is an ambition and you have not succeeded. We have to accept
:21:38. > :21:42.that there are a number of factors. It continues to be the case that the
:21:43. > :21:46.UK economy is growing and creating a lot of jobs, which is undoubtedly
:21:47. > :21:49.drawing people. But you made the promise on the basis that would not
:21:50. > :21:52.happen? We are certainly outperforming other countries in a
:21:53. > :21:57.way that we could not have predicted in 2010. That is one of the factors.
:21:58. > :22:00.But if you look at a lot of the steps that we have taken over the
:22:01. > :22:06.course of the last seven years, dealing with bogus students, for
:22:07. > :22:10.example, tightening up a lot of the rules. You can say all that but it
:22:11. > :22:13.has made no difference to the headline figure. Clearly it would
:22:14. > :22:19.have gone up by much more and we not taken the steps. But as I say, we
:22:20. > :22:24.cannot for ever, it seems to me, have net migration numbers in the
:22:25. > :22:28.hundreds of thousands. If we get that good Brexit deal, one of the
:22:29. > :22:33.things we can do is tighten up in terms of access here. You say that
:22:34. > :22:38.but you have always had control of non-EU migration. You cannot blame
:22:39. > :22:40.the EU for that. You control immigration from outside the EU.
:22:41. > :22:47.Have you ever managed to get even that below 100,000? Well, no doubt
:22:48. > :22:53.you will present the numbers now. You haven't. You have got down a bit
:22:54. > :22:57.from 2010, I will give you that, but even non-EU migration is still a lot
:22:58. > :23:02.more than 100000 and that is the thing you control. It is 164,000 on
:23:03. > :23:05.the latest figures. There is no point in saying to the voters that
:23:06. > :23:08.when we get control of the EU migration you will get it down when
:23:09. > :23:14.the bit you have control over, you have failed to get that down into
:23:15. > :23:18.the tens of thousands. The general trend has gone up. Non-EU migration
:23:19. > :23:24.we have brought down over the last few years. Not by much, not by
:23:25. > :23:29.anywhere near your 100,000 target. But we clearly have more tools
:23:30. > :23:34.available to us, following Brexit. At this rate it will be around 2030
:23:35. > :23:37.before you get non-EU migration down to 100,000. We clearly have more
:23:38. > :23:41.tools available to us and I return to the point I made. In the last six
:23:42. > :23:45.or seven years, particularly the last four or five, we have seen the
:23:46. > :23:50.UK jobs market growing substantially. It is extraordinary
:23:51. > :23:52.how many more jobs we have. So you'll only promised the migration
:23:53. > :23:57.target because you did not think you were going to run the economy well?
:23:58. > :24:00.That is what you are telling me. I don't think anyone expected us to
:24:01. > :24:05.create quite a number of jobs that we have done over the last six or
:24:06. > :24:08.seven years. At the time when other European countries have not been.
:24:09. > :24:13.George Osborne says your target is economically illiterate. I disagree
:24:14. > :24:20.with George on that. He is my old boss but I disagree with him on that
:24:21. > :24:23.point. And the reason I say that is looking at the economics and the
:24:24. > :24:29.wider social impact, I don't think it is sustainable for us to have
:24:30. > :24:32.hundreds of thousands, year after year after year. Let me ask you one
:24:33. > :24:36.other thing because you are the chief secretary. Your promising that
:24:37. > :24:41.spending on health will be ?8 billion higher in five use time than
:24:42. > :24:44.it is now. How do you pay for that? From a strong economy, two years ago
:24:45. > :24:50.we had a similar conversation because at that point we said that
:24:51. > :24:54.we would increase spending by ?8 billion. And we are more than on
:24:55. > :24:58.track to deliver it, because it is a priority area for us. Where will the
:24:59. > :25:03.money come from? It will be a priority area for us. We will find
:25:04. > :25:08.the money. So you have not been able to show us a revenue line where this
:25:09. > :25:13.?8 billion will come from. We have a record of making promises to spend
:25:14. > :25:17.more on the NHS and delivering. One thing I would say is that the only
:25:18. > :25:22.way you can spend more money on the NHS is if you have a strong economy,
:25:23. > :25:26.and the biggest risk... But that is true of anything. I am trying to
:25:27. > :25:30.find out where the ?8 billion come from, where will it come from? Know
:25:31. > :25:34.you were saying that perhaps you might increase taxes, ticking off
:25:35. > :25:40.the lock, so people are right to be suspicious. But you will not tell us
:25:41. > :25:45.where the ?8 billion will come from. Andrew, a strong economy is key to
:25:46. > :25:49.delivering more NHS money. That does not tell us where the money is
:25:50. > :25:52.coming from. The biggest risk to a strong economy would be a bad
:25:53. > :25:57.Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn would deliver. And we have a record of
:25:58. > :26:00.putting more money into the NHS. I think that past performance we can
:26:01. > :26:02.take forward. Thank you for joining us.
:26:03. > :26:05.So, the Conservatives have been taking a bit of flak
:26:06. > :26:09.But Conservative big guns have been out and about this morning taking
:26:10. > :26:12.Here's Boris Johnson on ITV's Peston programme earlier today:
:26:13. > :26:16.What we're trying to do is to address what I think
:26:17. > :26:19.everybody, all serious demographers acknowledge will be the massive
:26:20. > :26:23.problem of the cost of social care long-term.
:26:24. > :26:27.This is a responsible, grown-up, conservative approach,
:26:28. > :26:30.trying to deal with a long-term problem in a way that is equitable,
:26:31. > :26:32.allows people to pass on a very substantial sum,
:26:33. > :26:34.still, to their kids, and takes away the fear
:26:35. > :26:41.Joining me now from Liverpool is Labour's Shadow Chief Secretary
:26:42. > :26:52.Petered out, welcome to the programme. Let's start with social
:26:53. > :26:56.care. The Tories are saying that if you have ?100,000 or more in assets,
:26:57. > :27:02.you should pay for your own social care. What is wrong with that? Well,
:27:03. > :27:06.I think the issue at the end of the day is the question of fairness. Is
:27:07. > :27:11.it fair? And what we're trying to do is to get to a situation where we
:27:12. > :27:16.have, for example, the Dilnot report, which identified that you
:27:17. > :27:19.actually have cap on your spending on social care. We are trying to get
:27:20. > :27:26.to a position where it is a reasonable and fair approach to
:27:27. > :27:30.expenditure. But you will know that a lot of people, particularly in the
:27:31. > :27:35.south of country, London and the south-east, and the adjacent areas
:27:36. > :27:37.around it, they have benefited from huge house price inflation. They
:27:38. > :27:42.have seen their homes go up in value, if and when they sell, they
:27:43. > :27:48.are not taxed on that increase. Why should these people not pay for
:27:49. > :27:52.their own social care if they have the assets to do so? They will be
:27:53. > :27:57.paying for some of their social care but you cannot take social care and
:27:58. > :28:00.health care separately. It has to be an integrated approach. So for
:28:01. > :28:04.example if you do have dementia, you're more likely to be in an
:28:05. > :28:08.elderly person's home for longer and you most probably have been in care
:28:09. > :28:12.for a longer period of time. On the other hand, you might have, if you
:28:13. > :28:15.have had a stroke, there may be continuing care needs paid for by
:28:16. > :28:19.the NHS. So at the end of the date it is trying to get a reasonable
:28:20. > :28:28.balance and just to pluck a figure of ?100,000 out of thin air is not
:28:29. > :28:33.sensible. You will have heard me say about David Gold that the house
:28:34. > :28:37.prices in his area, about 450,000 or so, not quite that, and that people
:28:38. > :28:43.may have to spend quite a lot of that on social care to get down to
:28:44. > :28:47.?100,000. But in your area, the average house price is only
:28:48. > :28:52.?149,000, so your people would not have to pay anything like as much
:28:53. > :28:58.before they hit the ?100,000 minimum. I hesitate to say that but
:28:59. > :29:01.is that not almost a socialist approach to social care that if you
:29:02. > :29:06.are in the affluent Home Counties with a big asset, you pay more, and
:29:07. > :29:10.if you are in an area that is not so affluent and your house is not worth
:29:11. > :29:14.very much, you pay a lot less. What is wrong with that principle? I
:29:15. > :29:19.think the problem I am trying to get to is this issue about equity across
:29:20. > :29:25.the piece. At the end of the day, what we want is a system whereby it
:29:26. > :29:28.is capped at a particular level, and the Dilnot report, after much
:29:29. > :29:33.examination, said we should have a cap on care costs at ?72,000. The
:29:34. > :29:36.Conservatives decided to ditch that and come up with another policy
:29:37. > :29:41.which by all accounts seems to be even more Draconian. At the end of
:29:42. > :29:50.the day it is trying to get social care and an NHS care in a much more
:29:51. > :29:53.fluid way. We had offered the Conservatives to have a bipartisan
:29:54. > :29:57.approach to this. David just said that this is a long term. You do not
:29:58. > :30:03.pick a figure out of thin air and use that as a long-term strategy.
:30:04. > :30:08.The Conservatives are now saying they will increase health spending
:30:09. > :30:13.over the next five years in real terms. You will increase health
:30:14. > :30:19.spending. In what way is your approach to health spending better
:30:20. > :30:25.than the Tories' now? We are contributing an extra 7.2 billion to
:30:26. > :30:30.the NHS and social care over the next few years. But you just don't
:30:31. > :30:35.put money into the NHS or social care. It has to be an integrated
:30:36. > :30:39.approach to social and health care. What we've got is just more of the
:30:40. > :30:45.same. What we don't want to do is just say, we ring-fenced an out for
:30:46. > :30:53.here or there. What you have to do is try to get that... Let me ask you
:30:54. > :30:57.again. In terms of the amount of resource that is going to be devoted
:30:58. > :31:03.in the next five years, and resource does matter for the NHS, in what way
:31:04. > :31:07.are your plans different now from the Conservative plans? The key is
:31:08. > :31:13.how you use that resource. By just putting money in, you've got to say,
:31:14. > :31:19.if we are going to put that money on, how do we use it? As somebody
:31:20. > :31:23.who has worked in social care for 40 years, you have to have a different
:31:24. > :31:29.approach to how you use that money. The money we are putting in, 7.7,
:31:30. > :31:33.may be similar in cash terms to what the Tories claim they are putting
:31:34. > :31:47.in, but it's not how much you put in per se, it is how you use it. You
:31:48. > :31:50.are going to get rid of car parking charges in hospital, and you are
:31:51. > :31:52.going to increase pay by taking the cap on pay off. So it doesn't
:31:53. > :31:55.necessarily follow that the money, under your way of doing it, will
:31:56. > :31:59.follow the front line. What you need in the NHS is a system that is
:32:00. > :32:06.capable of dealing with the patience you have. What we have now is on at
:32:07. > :32:16.five Asian of the NHS. Staff leaving, not being paid properly. So
:32:17. > :32:20.pay and the NHS go hand in hand. Let's move onto another area of
:32:21. > :32:25.policy where there is some confusion. Who speaks for the Labour
:32:26. > :32:32.Party on nuclear weapons? Is it Emily Thornbury, or Nia Griffith,
:32:33. > :32:37.defence spokesperson? The Labour manifesto. It is clear. We are
:32:38. > :32:47.committed to the nuclear deterrent, and that is the definitive... Is it?
:32:48. > :32:51.Emily Thornbury said that Trident could be scrapped in the defence
:32:52. > :32:57.review you would have immediately after taking power. On LBC on Friday
:32:58. > :33:02.night. She didn't, actually. I listened to that. What she actually
:33:03. > :33:07.said is, as part of a Labour government coming in, a new
:33:08. > :33:11.government, there is always a defence review. But not the concept
:33:12. > :33:18.of Trident in its substance. She said there would be a review in
:33:19. > :33:22.terms of, and this is in our manifesto. When you reduce
:33:23. > :33:28.something, you review how it is operated. The review could scrap
:33:29. > :33:33.Trident. It won't scrap Trident. The review is in the context of how you
:33:34. > :33:39.protect it from cyber attacks. This will issue was seized upon that she
:33:40. > :33:44.was saying that we would have another review of Trident or Labour
:33:45. > :33:51.would ditch it. That is nonsense. You will have seen some reports that
:33:52. > :33:55.MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn in the early 90s because of his
:33:56. > :34:04.links to Irish republicanism. This has caused some people, his links to
:34:05. > :34:10.the IRA and Sinn Fein, it has caused some concern. Could you just listen
:34:11. > :34:17.to this clip and react. Do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn
:34:18. > :34:22.all bombing. But do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn what was done
:34:23. > :34:26.with the British Army as well as both sides as well. What happened in
:34:27. > :34:33.Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well. Do you distinguish between
:34:34. > :34:39.state forces, what the British Army did and the IRA? Well, in a sense,
:34:40. > :34:45.the treatment of IRA prisoners which made them into virtual political
:34:46. > :34:49.prisoners suggested that the British government and the state saw some
:34:50. > :34:56.kind of almost equivalent in it. My point is that the whole violence if
:34:57. > :35:03.you was terrible, was appalling, and came out of a process that had been
:35:04. > :35:08.allowed to fester in Northern Ireland for a very long time. That
:35:09. > :35:12.was from about two years ago. Can you explain why the Leader of the
:35:13. > :35:16.Labour Party, Her Majesty 's opposition, the man who would be our
:35:17. > :35:23.next Prime Minister, finds it so hard to condemn IRA arming? I think
:35:24. > :35:26.it has to be within the context that Jeremy Corbyn for many years trying
:35:27. > :35:35.to move the peace protest... Process along. So why wouldn't you condemn
:35:36. > :35:43.IRA bombing? Again, that was an issue, a traumatic event in Irish -
:35:44. > :35:48.British relations that went on for 30 years. It is a complicated
:35:49. > :35:53.matter. Bombing is not that complicated. If you are a man of
:35:54. > :35:57.peace, surely you would condemn the bomb and the bullet? Let me say
:35:58. > :36:04.this, I condemn the bomb and the bullet. Why can't your leader? You
:36:05. > :36:09.would have to ask Jeremy Corbyn, but that is in the context of what he
:36:10. > :36:10.was trying to do over a 25 year period to move the priest process
:36:11. > :36:13.along. Thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35,
:36:14. > :36:15.you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:36:16. > :36:26.in Scotland and Wales. Welcome to Sunday Politics South -
:36:27. > :36:31.my name's Peter Henley. And this is the second
:36:32. > :36:35.of our election hustings - we're in Worthing in West Sussex
:36:36. > :36:39.with a group of voters who are going to be grilling our three local
:36:40. > :36:42.politicians on why their party Tim Loughton is from
:36:43. > :36:53.the Conservatives, Sarah Osborne is from the Liberal Democrats,
:36:54. > :36:56.and Mark Farwell is from Labour. Before we let our inquisitors
:36:57. > :36:58.loose on them though, the campaign has been moving up
:36:59. > :37:02.a gear this week, and Frankie Peck has been taking a look
:37:03. > :37:09.at what's been going on out This was the weaker the main parties
:37:10. > :37:14.finally unveiled their manifestos for Government. We were told to go
:37:15. > :37:17.forward together with the Conservatives, invited to change
:37:18. > :37:23.Britain's future with the Liberal Democrats and Labour promised to act
:37:24. > :37:27.for the many and not the few. On Monday ahead of the Conservative
:37:28. > :37:37.manifesto launch to reason may was back in Oxfordshire Ian questioned
:37:38. > :37:41.by locals. -- Theresa May. But mental health is not top of the
:37:42. > :37:45.manifesto. Adult social care is. We put ?2
:37:46. > :37:51.billion more into social care for stubbornly to ensure the best
:37:52. > :37:53.practice is there around the whole of the country.
:37:54. > :37:57.Tim Farren was that a school in Portsmouth on Tuesday. He had focus
:37:58. > :38:09.on. That means a penny on income tax,
:38:10. > :38:15.95% will be paid for by their best. Jeremy Corbyn was in Bradford
:38:16. > :38:20.launching Labour's vision which many set out more retro feel.
:38:21. > :38:25.Labour will enter the cuts in the NHS, Labour will scrap to issue
:38:26. > :38:28.these, Labour will take our railways back into public ownership and put
:38:29. > :38:37.passengers first. Back in Hampshire, the BBC held a
:38:38. > :38:43.hustings with the candidates looking at the struggles facing the Queen
:38:44. > :38:46.I've had meetings with Jeremy Hunt I've had meetings with Jeremy Hunt
:38:47. > :38:49.who sent down his special adviser to have a look at this very issue.
:38:50. > :38:53.Only Labour will offer a real alternative to the Government and
:38:54. > :38:53.see investment in our hospital services.
:38:54. > :38:57.There will be more hustings from all There will be more hustings from all
:38:58. > :39:09.the local radio stations this week. I imagine there will be some
:39:10. > :39:12.questions about the railways. The manifesto is being released. Where
:39:13. > :39:17.there are surprises there for you as candidates? I will ask you for
:39:18. > :39:23.pleasant surprises. pleasant surprises.
:39:24. > :39:27.One thing I was really pleased about, is the high profile of mental
:39:28. > :39:31.health and in particular we need much more investment in mental
:39:32. > :39:34.health, we need mental health support much sooner. The fact we're
:39:35. > :39:38.going to amend the equalities act so that discrimination against people
:39:39. > :39:41.on the grounds of mental health will be required to think that is a
:39:42. > :39:46.welcome advance. To go that far to give it such a
:39:47. > :39:51.profile was a very welcome surprise. I was pleased that we were honest as
:39:52. > :39:55.a party that we need to fund the NHS, how we're going to pay for it,
:39:56. > :39:57.the penny on income tax, that is ring fenced and that's for adult
:39:58. > :40:03.social care as well and mental health which we campaigned on for
:40:04. > :40:12.many, many years. We asked for it to have a quality with physical health.
:40:13. > :40:21.Given that the manifesto was leaked at least a week before... It was a
:40:22. > :40:26.dead go. However, I was really pleased to see the proposals for a
:40:27. > :40:32.national social care service to run in parallel with the National Health
:40:33. > :40:36.Service. And be properly funded in a way that should've been for many,
:40:37. > :40:41.many decades. There were a lot of ? is a net your
:40:42. > :40:48.manifesto. Not so many in the Conservatives. Do you think that is
:40:49. > :40:53.fair? I think that Jeremy Corbyn explained
:40:54. > :40:56.quite adequately at least the 50 billion spent, which is the
:40:57. > :41:00.proposal. Where that would come from.
:41:01. > :41:03.All this business about bonds for nationalisation.
:41:04. > :41:06.Would you surprises either things were not more spelled-out?
:41:07. > :41:09.We are very honest on one of the more controversial things that will
:41:10. > :41:12.develop... Honest about not being
:41:13. > :41:14.straightforward about what the cost is?
:41:15. > :41:18.About the challenges of adult social care or example. When proposals we
:41:19. > :41:22.put forward will meet more work in detail at exactly the cost and where
:41:23. > :41:29.it falls. What we don't want is a lot of hostages to fortune in our
:41:30. > :41:34.manifesto and we certainly do not want a magic money tree responsible
:41:35. > :41:37.for ?54 billion of actually unfunded pledges which are completely
:41:38. > :41:44.unrealistic. Yes they were.
:41:45. > :41:48.?26 billion from attacks on bond that will never happen. They tried
:41:49. > :41:51.that in America the entire industry left overnight. It will never
:41:52. > :41:57.happen. This is apparently where the money is going to come from and it
:41:58. > :42:01.is not allowed. Corporation tax amongst other
:42:02. > :42:05.things. That will change. Think there is going to be a national
:42:06. > :42:08.council or a body, this is for tax evasion. That is in the amount of
:42:09. > :42:13.billions. The list goes on. I think it is pretty
:42:14. > :42:17.well-documented. Was yours well enough documented? You mentioned the
:42:18. > :42:22.penny. Do people really understand. At penny on income tax to pay for
:42:23. > :42:28.this? You think that is a clear way of doing it?
:42:29. > :42:33.It is a cup of coffee a week. Any thoughts from anybody here to
:42:34. > :42:42.kick us off? Sally.
:42:43. > :42:45.No, not at all. I'm completely disillusioned out all the manifestos
:42:46. > :42:50.of whether money is going to come from. All I know is that
:42:51. > :42:52.realistically we've got to pay a bit more.
:42:53. > :42:56.You've campaigned against the Gatwick expansion and that is why we
:42:57. > :43:00.invited you. You had dealings with politicians over the years. When you
:43:01. > :43:05.look at these manifestos do you put on a special pair of glasses?
:43:06. > :43:09.I read them as they are and I'm not at all political so I just read them
:43:10. > :43:15.as they are and I see what they going to try do for the country as a
:43:16. > :43:20.whole. And I guess I'm a realist. I see what is feasible at what is not
:43:21. > :43:25.feasible. But I do feel from all of them that there is a lot of pipe
:43:26. > :43:28.dreams and some of them and we will end up paying more.
:43:29. > :43:32.You campaigned for us to leave during the referendum. Giving
:43:33. > :43:36.promises be made never better than the ones who got in the referendum?
:43:37. > :43:42.It is difficult is it because we have to wait and see. It seems to me
:43:43. > :43:46.that the Conservatives are probably leading with the Brexit deal.
:43:47. > :43:54.That is what is really in your mind? Brexit. I am a political so I'm
:43:55. > :43:56.waiting to see what they will also say disease someone convinces me
:43:57. > :44:03.this is the way to go. Let's give them some that you get
:44:04. > :44:09.their teeth into. You're concerned about the train service, origin?
:44:10. > :44:13.Yes. I think nobody seems to bother about the people on the south coast.
:44:14. > :44:20.The Conservatives don't bother because they don't need to because
:44:21. > :44:25.they know that the voters their vote for them. Labour don't because
:44:26. > :44:35.they're never going to be in power down here. In 2017 you still cannot
:44:36. > :44:40.stay to see the ends of a show in London because you have to get to
:44:41. > :44:43.Victoria to catch the last train home.
:44:44. > :44:47.That is if the last train runs. When I was still working my friends
:44:48. > :44:51.and I went to Wimbledon one year and we could not wait to see the end of
:44:52. > :44:55.a very important match because we had to catch the last train home.
:44:56. > :44:59.The situation is exacted the same now as it was then.
:45:00. > :45:03.Two elements to that. First of all, the trains. Are we neglected by the
:45:04. > :45:07.major parties? Absolutely. We have campaigned for
:45:08. > :45:13.Southern rail to be sacked. They've done an appalling job.
:45:14. > :45:16.Just another privatised company in its place?
:45:17. > :45:24.I would like a fool, integrated transport policy, which we don't
:45:25. > :45:28.have put up we have silos, cut on buses and no investment on a train
:45:29. > :45:33.service and it is a false economy. We rely on a lot of tourism. We're
:45:34. > :45:47.making it very difficult for tourist to come and see us, are we not?
:45:48. > :45:54.Tim Farren was talking about him understanding the feelings of the
:45:55. > :46:00.North. He has been down to Lewis. We've had
:46:01. > :46:05.lots of visits from them and we have a really high membership in the
:46:06. > :46:11.south-east. We have can do is back deprived
:46:12. > :46:16.parts of my constituency were people rely on public services and we
:46:17. > :46:22.don't, in this part of the country, get a fair share of the cake. On
:46:23. > :46:26.transport, HS2, I had problems with HS2 but that's not going to help the
:46:27. > :46:33.south of England and we desperately needs investment in our
:46:34. > :46:38.infrastructure. We need reliable train services. The Government
:46:39. > :46:41.doesn't not care, we put 300 million into trying to deal with all the
:46:42. > :46:46.pinch points we've got that are causing all of the delays and also,
:46:47. > :46:58.we've got to revisit the franchise. It is not fit for purpose. No one
:46:59. > :47:01.comes out of this well. It is the biggest single issue I think
:47:02. > :47:04.affecting my constituents and it has been going on for far too long and
:47:05. > :47:10.it has got to be sorted. Any reaction to that? I think I
:47:11. > :47:15.imagine saying that 18 billion was earmarked for six roads in the UK
:47:16. > :47:22.and yet the 827 only ended up with 300 million. I thought it was only
:47:23. > :47:27.50 million. Chris Grayling took away the money
:47:28. > :47:32.that was going for around are undaunted just.
:47:33. > :47:40.There is 250 million allocated for the 827 and 100 million going to
:47:41. > :47:50.Worthing. But at the same time addressing the investment along the
:47:51. > :47:54.A27, it's a huge waste of money. When you're actually cutting... We
:47:55. > :47:59.have got in West Sussex cuts in bus services and I believe the
:48:00. > :48:02.contradiction is your talking about investment in bed infrastructure but
:48:03. > :48:05.not in public transport. And the people who are getting isolated,
:48:06. > :48:14.lots of people don't drive and are being isolated. The A27 does not
:48:15. > :48:19.have the right characteristics. You would be spending on cars.
:48:20. > :48:22.We should have a more integrated view on how we change and improve
:48:23. > :48:26.our transport system and throwing loads of money at a road around
:48:27. > :48:34.Ireland which is what were talking about now is a complete... Ruining
:48:35. > :48:37.our countryside and is not... Is going to increase traffic. Even
:48:38. > :48:43.highways England says it will increase traffic that.
:48:44. > :48:46.Would you help out car users you would all be public transport?
:48:47. > :48:53.I think it would be principally public bought the back transport. We
:48:54. > :48:57.are intending to take the railways back into public ownership or we
:48:58. > :49:07.heard the arguments in the 80s Douglas said that nationalised
:49:08. > :49:10.injuries -- nationalised industries, efficiency is very poor and I think
:49:11. > :49:14.the time has come. I think we learned from the East Coast line,
:49:15. > :49:17.that was in public ownership for a that was in public ownership for a
:49:18. > :49:21.very short period of time and returned 1 billion back to the
:49:22. > :49:28.taxpayer. It was then re-privatised. So I think, on the green agenda the
:49:29. > :49:33.A27 in Chichester it has torn the city into, those in favour the
:49:34. > :49:36.northern roots have vested interest there and those in the southern
:49:37. > :49:41.Nothing is happening with a lot of Nothing is happening with a lot of
:49:42. > :49:44.these roads. The other part of the question was what about the
:49:45. > :49:46.influence? I hear conservatives in local elections and national
:49:47. > :49:49.elections weighing, vote for me and elections weighing, vote for me and
:49:50. > :49:53.we have the era of Government. Do you think that is true? It did
:49:54. > :49:58.not make any difference getting Southern rail sorted out.
:49:59. > :50:04.It was your Prime Minister. The ten was not put on the radar
:50:05. > :50:09.until we got put their after 20 years of not being there. We need
:50:10. > :50:12.better public transport. We need better integrated public transport
:50:13. > :50:15.but we need a A27 but you can get cars and buses to go along rather
:50:16. > :50:23.than sit in traffic jams and that is why we need more investment.
:50:24. > :50:26.It will increase road traffic. I want to see traffic flows of people
:50:27. > :50:33.can get the jobs, to the schools, to the colleges.
:50:34. > :50:38.which is a serious problem on the which is a serious problem on the
:50:39. > :50:41.A27 at the minute is by stop start traffic. If traffic flow better we
:50:42. > :50:46.would have better air quality put all those reasons why we must invest
:50:47. > :50:49.in the A27. With the greatest of respect to mark would we were here
:50:50. > :50:54.in the same programme two years ago the Labour Party was going to scrap
:50:55. > :50:59.the A27 improvements. It has got to happen. It needs to be significant
:51:00. > :51:06.solar taxi makes a difference. It is not an either or. -- so it actually
:51:07. > :51:18.makes a difference. What July to see for the future?
:51:19. > :51:22.I think that is both because I use public transport before it can drive
:51:23. > :51:26.and is still so expensive for me as a young person. I can't afford to
:51:27. > :51:28.drive all the times or have to use public transport. I think there
:51:29. > :51:32.needs to be both because otherwise were all going to lose out.
:51:33. > :51:39.Let's move on from transport and talk about schools. A big issue in
:51:40. > :51:45.West Sussex. Peter has been involved in some of the campaign. What would
:51:46. > :51:50.you like to ask these candidates? How they address the crisis in
:51:51. > :51:55.education funding and the crisis in terms of teacher recruitment and
:51:56. > :52:02.retention which is a national issue. I think that, in west Sussex, not
:52:03. > :52:06.absolutely 100% certain of the statistics but it reads very poorly.
:52:07. > :52:11.In terms of funding for schools in particular. We have one of their
:52:12. > :52:16.lowest levels of funding in the country.
:52:17. > :52:19.Certainly more anger in West Sussex. So there was a campaign which the
:52:20. > :52:23.Chichester Labour Party supported throughout the whole of last June
:52:24. > :52:28.with some success because the formula has been changed. However, I
:52:29. > :52:33.think it is a structural problem. Resources going into the education
:52:34. > :52:40.system, including in higher education, as a per capita spend
:52:41. > :52:46.now, is lower or is the lowest it has been since the 1970s.
:52:47. > :52:50.I'm just hearing, spend more money. And you are saying, yes. Is that
:52:51. > :52:55.what we would all like to see? More money. More taxes paid.
:52:56. > :53:01.It is not sustainable at the moment. The percentage of GDP that we spend
:53:02. > :53:06.on our education has dropped drastically in seven years. At 22%
:53:07. > :53:12.drop. My school has lost 1.2 million over the last seven years so why we
:53:13. > :53:16.can make our budgets balance, the second thing is schools in West
:53:17. > :53:20.Sussex are now advertising for posts and people are not applying. We do
:53:21. > :53:23.not training of teachers to teach our own children. That is
:53:24. > :53:27.fundamentally wrong and the Government is not doing enough to
:53:28. > :53:31.attract people and keep teachers. The Lib Dems would invest a lot more
:53:32. > :53:36.in education. It is about investing into our future. We have a problem
:53:37. > :53:40.with productivity in the UK. If we invest in our children, we educate
:53:41. > :53:44.well, that will help in the productivity will get the money back
:53:45. > :53:48.longer term. School meals as well. The need to
:53:49. > :53:57.pay teachers better and we promise to lift the cap for a lot of public
:53:58. > :54:00.sector workers. It is very expensive to live in the south-east. I've been
:54:01. > :54:04.a governor to different primary schools. We did not attract a
:54:05. > :54:09.headteacher. We advertise over and over again by people couldn't afford
:54:10. > :54:14.to move to the south-east. So much of their salary would be taken up
:54:15. > :54:18.with the high housing costs so we have got to pay people better. If
:54:19. > :54:24.you want them to look after our budgets.
:54:25. > :54:27.I agree with that last point. I think it is because of that
:54:28. > :54:30.pressure, jointly with schools and governors and teachers of the MPs
:54:31. > :54:35.and local councillors that the Government announced an additional
:54:36. > :54:40.?4 billion and need more detail how that will trickle down but we have a
:54:41. > :54:47.double whammy in West Sussex. We are the worst funded shire county in the
:54:48. > :54:51.whole country. If you were a child in an equivalent school isn't in
:54:52. > :54:55.parts of London it is more. There are reasons why it is more in those
:54:56. > :55:01.places but that gap is far too big and all we're asking for is
:55:02. > :55:06.narrowing of it too many years, with that now outdated formula that came
:55:07. > :55:10.into place over ten years ago, has meant that west Sussex schools are
:55:11. > :55:13.now running on empty. There are no reserves there. So we're being
:55:14. > :55:16.doubly hit. We need a fair share of the cake and we need to make sure
:55:17. > :55:23.that the funding of schools and sustainable going forward. And we
:55:24. > :55:30.need to take account of the back-up -- the cost of living is highest.
:55:31. > :55:34.This is the second area for USA the Government is not doing well enough
:55:35. > :55:39.for us. And yet you are saying, vote for to reason a.
:55:40. > :55:43.Skills funding is probably the hottest issue locally at the moment.
:55:44. > :55:47.We're not getting a fair share of the cake.
:55:48. > :55:52.All she is talking about is grammar schools and free schools.
:55:53. > :55:56.One thing we have been talking about is the fact that 1.8 million more
:55:57. > :56:02.children now are in schools rated good or outstanding than were seven
:56:03. > :56:05.years ago. So our kids are getting a better education. Teachers around a
:56:06. > :56:09.lot of pressure and they're doing a contested job to provide that the
:56:10. > :56:11.need to make sure those kids are studying subjects that are
:56:12. > :56:14.employable for the jobs of the future that was not happening ten
:56:15. > :56:19.years ago. They are getting a better education?
:56:20. > :56:25.My entrance agency is wet weather. It moved from being the fifth worst
:56:26. > :56:29.funded to the fourth worst funded. We've been given a cake on the cake
:56:30. > :56:38.can be sliced rather much you like, but it is not big enough.
:56:39. > :56:42.Duo shortages of other workers? I represent the West Sussex growers
:56:43. > :56:47.Association remembers employee of a 7000 people within West Sussex. We
:56:48. > :56:52.had the second largest employer. Our big concern going forward is a lot
:56:53. > :56:58.of the sector is migrant workers. Robbie 60 or 70%. Busy, there is
:56:59. > :57:04.lots of good wood-mac uncertainty and concern. That is already hitting
:57:05. > :57:08.us. People we see saying, we're not certain we will be here next year.
:57:09. > :57:11.That is a situation where there may be reading too much into it but
:57:12. > :57:22.going forward, those individuals from European countries have moved
:57:23. > :57:28.through our businesses and have actually been permanent positions,
:57:29. > :57:31.how will be secure about? Guaranteed right free youth
:57:32. > :57:37.nationals who are now. Do it unilaterally. Don't wait for the EU.
:57:38. > :57:43.It would take out the uncertainty of it.
:57:44. > :57:50.Why has it not happened? To reason they made that offer before we
:57:51. > :57:55.triggered Article 50 and was told we had to wait until the negotiations.
:57:56. > :57:56.You could do it now. We can't. We wanted to be number one item on the
:57:57. > :57:59.agenda. agenda.
:58:00. > :58:08.You are keeping its back as a bargaining item, our rent you?
:58:09. > :58:14.We don't want to use people as bargaining chips and Europe has more
:58:15. > :58:20.to lose from this. We want a mutual rights of voters in C and employment
:58:21. > :58:23.for all those people going forward and it will give certainty for all
:58:24. > :58:28.those industries that rely on migrant labour from Europe.
:58:29. > :58:33.Where do we stand with Jeremy Corbyn?
:58:34. > :58:36.It is clear in the manifesto, the Labour Party will make guarantees
:58:37. > :58:41.for all those migrant workers currently citizens and will then
:58:42. > :58:48.subsequently have the rights of permanent stay. But I think the live
:58:49. > :58:53.to wood-mac Liberal Democrats point is very important. I really do
:58:54. > :58:57.believe that Michael Heseltine, he said he does not think that the two
:58:58. > :59:01.will ever leave the European Union in the way that it is described. It
:59:02. > :59:06.is true we will not be a member but I cannot imagine how we could run
:59:07. > :59:08.the growers Association, the National Health Service in other
:59:09. > :59:13.parts of the economy without migrant labour.
:59:14. > :59:17.That is where we have to leave it. Thank you very much all three of
:59:18. > :59:19.you. Except maybe the most important issue that we come to decide. IQ.
:59:20. > :59:21.cancelled. And rent to own is still our policy. Thank you very much, Tom
:59:22. > :59:27.Brake. Andrew, back to you. So, two and half weeks
:59:28. > :59:30.to go till polling day, let's take stock of the campaign
:59:31. > :59:32.so far and look ahead Sam, Isabel and Steve
:59:33. > :59:46.are with me again. Sam, Mrs May had made a great thing
:59:47. > :59:51.about the just about managing. Not the poorest of the poor, but not
:59:52. > :59:57.really affluent people, who are maybe OK but it's a bit of a
:59:58. > :00:01.struggle. What is in the manifesto for them? There is something about
:00:02. > :00:05.the high profile items in the manifesto. She said she wants to
:00:06. > :00:10.help those just above the poorest level. But if you look at things
:00:11. > :00:15.like the winter fuel allowance, which is going to be given only to
:00:16. > :00:20.the poorest. If you look at free school meals for infants, those for
:00:21. > :00:25.the poorest are going to be kept, but the rest will go. The social
:00:26. > :00:31.care plan, those who are renting or in properties worth up to ?90,000,
:00:32. > :00:38.they are going to be treated, but those in properties worth above
:00:39. > :00:43.that, 250,000, for example, will have to pay. Which leads to the
:00:44. > :00:48.question - what is being done for the just about managings? There is
:00:49. > :00:52.something, the personal allowance that David Cameron promised in 2015,
:00:53. > :00:59.that they are not making a big deal of that, because they cannot say by
:01:00. > :01:06.how much. So you are looking in tax rises on the just about managings.
:01:07. > :01:15.Where will the tax rises come from. We do not know, that there is the 40
:01:16. > :01:19.million pounds gap for the Tories to reach what they are pledging in
:01:20. > :01:25.their manifesto. We do not know how that is going to be made up, more
:01:26. > :01:28.tax, or more borrowing? So that is why the questions of the
:01:29. > :01:33.implications of removing the tax lock are so potentially difficult
:01:34. > :01:37.for Tory MPs. The Labour manifesto gives figures for the cost of
:01:38. > :01:40.certain policies and where the revenue will come from. You can
:01:41. > :01:46.argue about the figures, but at least we have the figures. The Tory
:01:47. > :01:50.manifesto is opaque on these matters. That applies to both the
:01:51. > :01:54.manifestos. Looking at the Labour manifesto on the way here this
:01:55. > :01:58.morning, when you look at the section on care for the elderly,
:01:59. > :02:03.they simply say, there are various ways in which the money for this can
:02:04. > :02:09.be raised. They are specific on other things. They are, and we heard
:02:10. > :02:16.John McDonnell this morning being very on that, and saying there is
:02:17. > :02:23.not a single ? in Tory manifesto. I have only got to page 66. It is
:02:24. > :02:28.quite broad brush and they are very open to challenge. For example, on
:02:29. > :02:33.the detail of a number of their flagship things. There is no detail
:02:34. > :02:38.on their immigration policy. They reiterate the ambition, but not how
:02:39. > :02:45.they are going to do that, without a massive increase in resource for
:02:46. > :02:50.Borders officials. We are at a time where average wages are lagging
:02:51. > :02:55.behind prices. And in work benefits remain frozen. I would have thought
:02:56. > :03:00.that the just-about-managings are people who are in work but they need
:03:01. > :03:06.some in work benefits to make life tolerable and be able to pay bills.
:03:07. > :03:14.Doesn't she has to do more for them? Maybe, but this whole manifesto was
:03:15. > :03:20.her inner circle saying, right, this is our chance to express our... It
:03:21. > :03:25.partly reads like a sort of philosophical essay at times. About
:03:26. > :03:29.the challenges, individualism against collectivism. Some of it
:03:30. > :03:35.reads quite well and is quite interesting, but in terms of its
:03:36. > :03:40.detail, Labour would never get away with it. They wouldn't be allowed to
:03:41. > :03:44.be so vague about where taxes are going to rise. We know there are
:03:45. > :03:49.going to be tax rises after the election, but we don't know where
:03:50. > :03:57.they will be. 100%, there will be tax rises. We know that they wanted
:03:58. > :04:02.a tax rise in the last budget, but they couldn't get it through because
:04:03. > :04:07.of the 2015 manifesto. Labour do offer a lot more detail. People
:04:08. > :04:13.could disagree with it, but there is a lot more detail. More to get your
:04:14. > :04:19.teeth into. About capital gains tax and the rises for better owners and
:04:20. > :04:25.so on. The SNP manifesto comes out this week, and the Greens and Sinn
:04:26. > :04:28.Fein. We think Ukip as well. There are more manifestos to come. The Lib
:04:29. > :04:35.Dems have already brought theirs out. Isn't the Liberal Democrat
:04:36. > :04:42.campaign in trouble? It doesn't seem to be doing particular the well in
:04:43. > :04:44.the polls, or at the local elections a few weeks ago. The Liberal
:04:45. > :04:50.Democrats are trying to fish in quite a small pool for votes. They
:04:51. > :04:55.are looking to get votes from those remainers who want to reverse the
:04:56. > :05:00.result, in effect. Tim Farron is promising a second referendum on the
:05:01. > :05:08.deal at the end of the negotiation process. And that is a hard sell. So
:05:09. > :05:14.those voting for remain on June 23 are not low hanging fruit by any
:05:15. > :05:19.means? Polls suggesting that half of those want to reverse the result, so
:05:20. > :05:23.that is a feeling of about 20% on the Lib Dems, and they are getting
:05:24. > :05:28.slightly less than half at the moment, but there are not a huge
:05:29. > :05:36.amount of votes for them to get on that strategy. It doesn't feel like
:05:37. > :05:42.Tim Farron and the Lib Dems have promised enough. They are making a
:05:43. > :05:45.very serious case on cannabis use in a nightclub, but the optics of what
:05:46. > :05:49.they are discussing doesn't make them look like an anchor in a future
:05:50. > :05:54.coalition government that they would need to be. I wonder if we are
:05:55. > :05:58.seeing the re-emergence of the 2-party system? And it is not the
:05:59. > :06:02.same two parties. In Scotland, the dynamics of this election seemed to
:06:03. > :06:04.be the Nationalists against the Conservatives. In England, if you
:06:05. > :06:22.look at what has happened to be Ukip vote, and what Sam was saying about
:06:23. > :06:24.the Lib Dems are struggling a bit to get some traction, it is
:06:25. > :06:26.overwhelmingly Labour and the Conservatives. A different 2-party
:06:27. > :06:28.system from Scotland, but a 2-party system. There are a number of
:06:29. > :06:33.different election is going on in parallel. In Scotland it is about
:06:34. > :06:37.whether you are unionist or not. Here, we have the collapse of the
:06:38. > :06:44.Ukip vote, which looks as though it is being redistributed in the
:06:45. > :06:49.Tories' favour. This is a unique election, and will not necessarily
:06:50. > :06:53.set the trend for elections to come. In the Tory manifesto, I spotted the
:06:54. > :07:02.fact that the fixed term Parliament act is going to be scrapped. That
:07:03. > :07:05.got almost no coverage! It turned out to be academic anyway, that it
:07:06. > :07:09.tells you something about how Theresa May is feeling, and she
:07:10. > :07:14.wants the control to call an election whenever it suits her.
:07:15. > :07:23.Re-emergence of the 2-party system, for this election or beyond? For
:07:24. > :07:27.this election, yes, but it shows the sort of robust strength of parties
:07:28. > :07:32.and their fragility. In other words, the Lib Dems haven't really
:07:33. > :07:36.recovered from the losses in the last general election, and are
:07:37. > :07:40.therefore not really seen as a robust vehicle to deliver Remain. If
:07:41. > :07:45.they were, they might be doing better. The Labour Party hasn't
:07:46. > :07:50.recovered in Scotland, and yet, if you look at the basic divide in
:07:51. > :07:55.England and Scotland and you see two parties battling it out, it is very,
:07:56. > :08:00.very hard for the smaller parties to break through and last. Many appear
:08:01. > :08:06.briefly on the political stage and then disappear again. The election
:08:07. > :08:12.had the ostensible goal of Brexit, but we haven't heard much about it
:08:13. > :08:18.in the campaign. Perhaps the Tories want to get back onto that. David
:08:19. > :08:22.Davis sounding quite tough this morning, the Brexit minister, saying
:08:23. > :08:26.there is no chance we will talk about 100 billion. And we have to
:08:27. > :08:31.have power in the negotiations on the free trade deal or what ever it
:08:32. > :08:35.is. I think they are keen to get the subject of the manifesto at this
:08:36. > :08:40.point, because it has not started too well. There is an irony that
:08:41. > :08:45.Theresa May ostensibly called the election because she needed a
:08:46. > :08:48.stronger hand in the Brexit negotiations, and there was an
:08:49. > :08:51.opportunity for the Lib Dems, with their unique offer of being the
:08:52. > :08:57.party that is absolutely against the outcome of the referendum, and
:08:58. > :09:02.offering another chance. There hasn't been much airtime on that
:09:03. > :09:08.particular pledge, because instead, this election has segued into being
:09:09. > :09:13.all about leadership. Theresa May's leadership, and looking again at the
:09:14. > :09:20.Tory manifesto, I was struck that she was saying that this is my plan
:09:21. > :09:26.for the future, not ABBA plan. Even when talking about social care, he
:09:27. > :09:30.manages to work in a bit about Theresa May and Brexit. And Boris
:09:31. > :09:35.Johnson this morning, an interview he gave on another political
:09:36. > :09:39.programme this morning, it was extraordinarily sycophantic for him.
:09:40. > :09:46.Isn't Theresa May wonderful. There is a man trying to secure his job in
:09:47. > :09:52.the Foreign Office! Will he succeed? I think she will leave him. Better
:09:53. > :09:58.in the tent than out. What did you make of David Davis' remarks? He was
:09:59. > :10:04.basically saying, we will walk away from the negotiating table if the
:10:05. > :10:12.Europeans slam a bill for 100 billion euros. The point is that the
:10:13. > :10:16.Europeans will not slam a bill for 100 billion euros on the negotiating
:10:17. > :10:21.table. That is the gross figure. There are all sorts of things that
:10:22. > :10:26.need to be taken into account. I imagine they will ask for something
:10:27. > :10:33.around the 50 or ?60 billion mark. It looks that they are trying to
:10:34. > :10:36.make it look like a concession when they do make their demands in order
:10:37. > :10:41.to soften the ground for what is going to happen just two weeks after
:10:42. > :10:46.general election day. He makes a reasonable point about having
:10:47. > :10:49.parallel talks. What they want to do straightaway is deal with the bill,
:10:50. > :10:54.Northern Ireland and citizens rights. All of those things are very
:10:55. > :10:58.complicated and interlinked issues, which cannot be dealt with in
:10:59. > :11:03.isolation. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with parallel talks,
:11:04. > :11:09.just to work out where we are going with Northern Ireland and the
:11:10. > :11:14.border. Steve, you can't work out what the Northern Ireland border
:11:15. > :11:18.will be, and EU citizens' writes here, until you work out what our
:11:19. > :11:23.relationship with the EU in the future will be. Indeed. The British
:11:24. > :11:27.government is under pressure to deal quickly with the border issue in
:11:28. > :11:32.Ireland, but feel they can't do so because when you have a tariff free
:11:33. > :11:35.arrangement outcome, or an arrangement that is much more
:11:36. > :11:40.protectionist, and that will determine partly the nature of the
:11:41. > :11:43.border. You cannot have a quick agreement on that front without
:11:44. > :11:47.knowing the rest of the deal. I think the negotiation will be
:11:48. > :11:52.complex. I am certain they want a deal rather than none, because this
:11:53. > :11:58.is no deal thing is part of the negotiation at this early stage.
:11:59. > :12:01.Sounding tough in the general election campaign also works
:12:02. > :12:09.electorally. But after the election, it will be a tough negotiation,
:12:10. > :12:12.beginning with this cost of Brexit. My understanding is that the
:12:13. > :12:17.government feels it's got to make the Europeans think they will not do
:12:18. > :12:22.a deal in order to get a deal. They don't want no deal. Absolutely not.
:12:23. > :12:25.And I'm sure it plays into the election. I'm sure the rhetoric will
:12:26. > :12:30.change when the election is over. That's all for today,
:12:31. > :12:32.thank you to all my guests. The Daily Politics will be
:12:33. > :12:35.back on BBC Two at 12.00 And tomorrow evening I will be
:12:36. > :12:39.starting my series of interviews with the party leaders -
:12:40. > :12:41.first up is the Prime Minister, Theresa May,
:12:42. > :12:43.that's at 7pm on BBC One. And I'll be back here at the same
:12:44. > :12:47.time on BBC One next Sunday. Remember - if it's Sunday,
:12:48. > :13:36.it's the Sunday Politics. We've made great strides
:13:37. > :13:37.tackling HIV. Imagine if we could
:13:38. > :13:40.create a movement