28/05/2017 Sunday Politics South

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: Paying for adult social care is a massive problem -

so how do the political parties reckon they're going to do it?

We'll have live debate in half an hour.

what the Conservatives are offering the capital, having voted Remain.

To help guide me through this morning, I'm joined by

Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Tim Marshall.

They'll be sharing their thoughts on Twitter and you can join

So, with a week and a half to go, the election campaign

And some recent polls suggest the race is just

We'll be taking a closer look at that in just a moment but, first,

here are some of the key events over the next 10 days or so:

Tonight at 6pm will see the third of the party leader interviews.

This time it's the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon facing questions

While many across the UK will be enjoying tomorrow's bank holiday,

there will be no break in campaigning for

And in the evening it will be the turn of Ukip's Paul Nuttall

On Tuesday the SNP publish their manifesto -

the last of the major parties to do so - after last week's

Then on Wednesday, the BBC's Election Debate will see

representatives from the seven main parties debate in front

On Thursday, Lib Dem leader Tim Farron will have his interview...

Before Friday's Question Time special with Theresa May

They won't debate each other, but will take questions

consecutively from members of the audience.

The final week of campaigning is a short one, with politicians

cramming in three days of door-knocking before voters go

We'll have an exit poll once voting has ended at 10pm,

with the result expected early in the morning of June 9th.

Well, it's Sunday, and that always means a spate of new opinion

And they make for fascinating, if a tad confusing, reading.

There are five new opinion polls today, which have

the Conservative lead over Labour anywhere from six

points to 14 points. So, what's going on?

Professor John Curtice is the expert we always turn

to at times like this, and he joins me from Glasgow.

Take us through these polls. They seem to be all over the place? They

may seem to be but there is a very consistent key message. Four of

these five polls, if you compare them with what they were saying

before the Conservative manifesto launch on the 18th, four say the

Conservatives are down by two points. Four of them say the Labour

vote is up by two points. A clear consistent message. The Conservative

lead has narrowed. Why does this matter? It matters because we are

now in a position where the leads are such that the Conservatives can

no longer be sure of getting the landslide majority they want. Some

posters suggesting they may be in trouble and it is going to get

rather close. Others suggested is further apart. There are two major

sources of... The Poles agree that young voters will vote Labour if

they vote. Older voters will vote for the Conservatives. How many of

those younger voters will turn out to vote? The second thing is whether

the evidence in the opinion polls that the Conservatives are advancing

more in the North of England and the Midlands is realised that the ballot

box? If it is not realised, the Tories chances of getting a

landslide look remote. If it is, they could still well indeed get a

majority more than 80%. The Conservatives have lost some ground

depending on which opinion poll you look at. What about the Labour

Party? It is gaining ground. It has been gaining ground ever since week

one. They started on 26, they now average 35. There were a lot of

people out there at the beginning of the campaign who were saying, I

usually vote Labour but the truth is I'm not sure about Jeremy Corbyn.

They seem to have decided the Labour manifesto wasn't so bad. They have

looked at Theresa May and have said, we will stick with Labour. Labour

have managed to draw back into the fold some of their traditional

voters who were disenchanted, together with, crucially, some of

those younger voters who have never voted before, who have always been a

particular target for Jeremy Corbyn. What is your reaction to previous

opinion polls and elections weather has been a feeling that some of the

Labour support has been overstated? This be a worry this time? That is

one of the uncertainties that faces the opinion polls and the rest of

us. We had a conference on Friday at which it was carefully explained

that pollsters have been trying to correct the errors that resulted in

an overestimation of Labour support a couple of years ago, particularly

among younger voters. You shouldn't assume the opinion polls will be

wrong this time because they were wrong the last time. We want in

truth know whether or not the polls have got it right. Even if they are

wrong in terms of the level, they are not wrong in terms of the trend.

The trends have been dramatic so far. A big rise in Tory support

early on at the expense of Ukip. And subsequently, a remarkable rise in

Labour support, albeit from a low initial baseline. This election has

already seen quite a lot of movement. We shouldn't rule out the

possibility there will be yet more in the ten days to come.

That is his analysis. Let's talk to the panel. Julia, how concerned

should Conservative headquarters be at this particular point at what

looks like an apparent surge by Labour? Depends if you want a

massive landslide majority or might not. I assume the Tory party do.

Whether anybody thinks that is a good idea is a different matter.

Undoubtedly the manifesto league was a total disaster. Social care policy

and the U-turn. Lots of stuff in the Labour manifesto was very appealing.

The tactic from Sir Lynton Crosby was clear. It is all about Theresa

May. Don't even mention the candidate or the party. The Labour

Party, the candidates are on the moderate side are saying, don't

mention Jeremy Corbyn. This has been a battle between two big people. The

more we have seen of Theresa May, she has gone down. The more we have

seen of Jeremy Corbyn, he has gone up. If you make it about strong and

stable leadership and then you do something like a massive

unprecedented U-turn on a key policy like social care, the knock is even

greater. Do you think that is the reason for the change in the opinion

polls or is Labour gaining some momentum? I think it is part of the

reason. You can understand why the focus was on her at the beginning

because her personal ratings were stratospheric. What is interesting

is all successful leaders basically cast a spell over voters in the

media. None of them are titans. All of them are flawed. It is a question

of when the spell is broken. This is a first for a leader's spell to be

broken during an election campaign. That was a moment of high

significance. The fact the Labour Party campaign is more robust than

many thought it would be is the other factor. I think it is the

combination of the two, that the trend, as Professor John Curtis

said, the trend has been this narrow. There has not been much

campaigning. Local campaigning resumed on Thursday, national

campaigning on Friday. Do you think, Tim Marshall, that the opinion polls

are reflecting what happened in Manchester and people's thoughts

about which party will keep them safe? No, I think that will come

next week. I think it is too soon for that. It was quite

understandable from the V -- the very beginning for Lynton Crosby to

frame the campaign in terms of Theresa May and Brexit. The

electorate can have its own view. You always have to go back to

Clinton's it's the economy stupid for most of the electorate. It is

framed in your electricity bill. It is framed in your jobs. Both

manifestos have got more holes in them than Swiss cheese. It comes

down to which manifesto you believe. The Labour manifesto makes more

promises about things you care about like your electricity bill.

Interesting, but in the end despite while we thought would be a Brexit

election, it has been a lot about public services. It always comes

down to bread-and-butter issues. I don't think we have quite seen how

the terrorist you has played out. We had the Westminster attack only a

couple of months ago. That was already factored in in terms of who

you trust and who you don't trust. The IRA stuff from Jeremy Corbyn is

already factored in. People actually care about how ordinary government

policies affect their lives. Thank you very much.

The election campaign was, of course, put on hold

following the terrorist attack in Manchester

But now that campaigning has resumed, it's hardly

surprising that security is now a primary concern.

The Labour Party has announced it would recruit 1,000 more

Jeremy Corbyn, speaking on ITV at short while ago, says previous cuts

have undermined security. It seems that the cuts in police

numbers have led to some very dangerous situation is emerging. It

is also a question of a community response as well. So that where, an

imam, for example, lets the police he is concerned about a muddy, I

would hope they would act. And I would hope we have -- and I would

hope they would have the resources to act as well.

Joining me now from Leeds is the Shadow Justice

Good morning. You have announced a thousand more Security and

Intelligence agency staff. That is in line with what the government has

already announced and the Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, has

said you would not be spending any more money. It doesn't amount to

much, does it? That is just one of the parts of our pledge card on the

safer communities. There is also 10,000 extra police, because the

Conservatives cut the police by 20,000. That 10,000 extra police

would mean in -- and extra police officer in each neighbourhood. There

are 3000 extra put -- prison officers. Prison staff has been cut

by 6000. That is a third. It is not helping keep communities safer. We

are pledging 3000 extra firefighters. Also, a thousand extra

security staff and 500 extra border guards. There have been 13 areas

identified where our borders are not as secure as they should be. That is

the list of numbers you have given. If we concentrate on the security

services, because it was Jeremy Corbyn he said there will be more

police on the streets under Labour. If the security sources need more

resources they should get them. Why aren't you giving them more? We are

committing to a thousand more police. The Godinet is doing that as

well. You are not committing anything more. The government has

not delivered on that promise. We will deliver on that promise is --

promise. What Jeremy has made very clear is that you can't do security

on the cheap. Austerity has to stop at the police station door, and at

the hospital door. But we will be giving the resources required to

keep our communities safer. So you will give them the resources and

more powers? Well, the police need to be empowered. But when you listen

to what the Police Federation are saying, they have been speaking out

for a long time about the danger caused by police cuts. And I'm

talking not only about terrorism, not only about acts of extreme

violence, but anything from anti-social behaviour to burglary.

Use it more powers. What sort of powers are you thinking of giving

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

We need to listen to the intelligence community and the

security service, to the army and the police, about what they think

and how they think our communities could be made safe. One thing is

clear. Cutting the number of police by 20,000 makes our community is

less safe, not more safe. You said you will listen to the security

services. Can voters be reassured and guaranteed that Jeremy Corbyn

will listen to the security services and the police in terms of more

powers if that is what they want? Until now he has spent his whole

political career voting against measures designed to tackle

home-grown and international terrorism. Jeremy Corbyn's speech on

safer communities earlier this week made clear he is listening to the

security services. So he would grant those new powers. He voted against

the terrorism Act in 2000, into thousands and six. In 2011. And in

2014, the data retention and investigatory Powers act. Which new

powers will he be happy to enact? Just to say, Jeremy Corbyn along

with Theresa May, David Davis and many Conservative MPs, voted against

legislation where they thought it would be ill-advised, ineffective or

actually counter-productive. It is a very complex situation. What we

don't want to do is introduce hastily prepared laws with one eye

to the newspaper headlines, which can act as recruiting sergeants for

terrorism. And actually, when I said earlier that Jeremy Corbyn made

clear in his speech this week that he has been listening to the

security services, what he said about the international situation

has also been said by the former head of MI5, Stella Rimington, and

her predecessor. As well as president of back -- President

Barack Obama. You say he will give the police and

security services the resources and powers they need. If we look back at

some of the legislation Jeremy Corbyn and others voted against in

2000, it gave the Secretary of State the -- new powers... Does Jeremy

Corbyn still think that is a bad idea? Jeremy Corbyn along with

Theresa May, David Davis and others... I know you want to bracket

it with Conservatives but I'm interested in what Jeremy Corbyn

will do when he says we are going to be smarter about fighting terrorism.

If he's not prepared to vote in favour of those sorts of measures,

or trying to impose restrictions on suspects, I'm trying to find out

what he will do. It is a complex situation. With this legislation the

devil is often in the detail. If it was a simple and stopping terrorism

by voting a piece of legislation through Parliament, it would have

been stopped a long time ago. Sadly there are no easy answers, and that

is recognised by Barack Obama, Stella Rimington, the head of the

MI5, by David Davis and other Conservative MPs. What is clear, as

Jeremy made clear in his speech this week, is the way things are being

done currently is not working. We have got to be tough on terrorism

and the unforgivable acts of murder, but also tough on the causes of

terrorism as well. The sad truth is there are no easy answers. If there

were, the problem would have been solved a long time ago. If you more

security and terrorism officers but your leader is still uncomfortable

with giving them the powers they need to do their jobs because it is

complicated legislation, they will want to know how you are going to do

it. At another stop the War rally in 2014, Jeremy Corbyn said the murder

of a charity worker was jingoism. At the beginning of that speech he

mentioned the importance of the one-minute silence for the memory of

Alan Henning who was murdered. What he has also made clear is

responsibility for acts of terrorism and murder lies with the murder, and

something that's really disappointed me is that the Prime Minister said

the other day that in Jeremy Corbyn's speech on this on Monday,

he said... Whether she agrees with him on his politics, she knows he

didn't say that in his speech, but what troubles me is you have got a

Prime Minister who must have sat down with her advisers earlier that

day and said, well I do know he didn't say that but if we say he did

we might win some votes. I think that is shameful and it shows

Theresa May cannot be trusted. These issues should transcend party

politics. We need to pull together on this issue. Thank you very much.

Well, the Conservatives have promised a new statutory commission

The party says it will identify extremism, including

the "non-violent" kind, and help communities stand up to it.

Also this morning, the Security Minister, Ben Wallace,

has attacked internet giants for failing to tackle terror

online, and accused them of being ruthless money-makers.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics. Those comments you have made about

social media companies failing in their responsibility to take down

extremist material, what will you do to compel them? I think we will look

at the range of options. The Germans have proposed a fine, we are not

sure whether that will work, but there are range of pressures we can

put onto some of these companies. Some have complied. In the article

in the Sunday Telegraph today I did say it is not all of them. They are

not immune to pressure. We can do internationally, and the Prime

Minister urged at the G7 and international response. I think

there are a range of issues. We could change the law. You mentioned

the G7, and rhetoric and warm words are fine to an extent but it is

action people want. If you have made these impassioned remarks in the

newspapers about them failing to do the job, people want to know what

powers do you have now to say to social media companies take down

this material? We have an act that was recently passed. In this area we

have just finished consulting on one of the areas we could use but we

cannot pre-empt the consultation. We have right now officials from my

department over in the United States with American officials working with

CSPs because what we see is that they do respond to pressure. The

best example is we think they have the technology and the capability to

change the algorithms they use that maximise profit over safety. But you

are relying on these companies devoting more resources to this line

of work that you would like to see them do. Have you got any evidence

they will do that? They said, only a few weeks ago before the election

was called the Home Secretary hosted a Round Table with them. We have

evidence they are trying to improve it. A few are refusing to or being

difficult, and that's why the Prime Minister was right to step up not

only the language she was using but to say we are not going to allow

this to progress any more. People will be worried about who will make

the judgment about what is unacceptable and what should be

taken down. Let me show you this, which was shared widely across

social media. If you read that quote you could argue it is at the same

end if you like. The man in the picture is a terrorist hate

preacher, the jihadist who was killed in Yemen by the Americans. Is

this the sort of thing you would be demanding social media companies

take down? You have to look at the context it was deployed in. I could

show you some of the 270,000 pieces we have had removed since 2010 from

internet sites that have been extreme. The big issue is not often

the individual image, it is the way these companies set up the

algorithms to link you. If you were watching that on Facebook delivered

to you, perhaps you would like to look at this, because that's how

they set it up. If you go onto YouTube, you can get let down the

path from looking at Manchester... I understand your example, but from a

practical level are you expecting media companies to take down that

sort of posts if it appeared? Yes... You are? Who will make the decisions

about what will radicalise young people that could lead someone down

the path to let off a bomb? If I invite your viewers to look at the

work the Guardian have done on Facebook guidance, to say for

example it is OK to produce videos or broadcast videos of

seven-year-olds being bullied as long as it wasn't accompanied by

captions, I don't think you need to be an expert to say that is not

acceptable. Something more worrying for you as a journalist and me as a

politician, another set of guidance that says... I think this is quite

menacing... That certain people don't deserve our protection. That

includes journalists and politicians and people who are controversial. So

I think there is more work to be done but at the end of the day it is

the pathway this stuff leads to. It is more about examining how much

progress you can make. The Government says there are up to

23,000 potential terrorist attackers in this country, 3000 of those

posing a serious threat being monitored. That is pretty

disturbing, these are big numbers. Yes, and the tragedy of Manchester

shows this is not about failure, it is about the scale of the challenge

we face and that is why it is important that alongside people is

powers. Should you double the size of MI5 for example? We have

increased year-on-year in real terms not only the money but the numbers

of people in MI5. It is now 2000 we have committed to increased to...

Before the attack. Before our manifesto we had recruited, we have

increased the whole of government spending on counterterrorism from

?11.7 billion in 2015 up to 15.7 billion. Would you expand the number

of people in MI5? I have asked them on a regular basis if they have the

resource if they are happy with it, and the answer comes back time and

time again, yes we are. You have quite extensive powers at your

disposal, the question is if you are using them. Measures were introduced

in 2012 to replace control orders, but they have rarely been used. Only

seven are currently in operation. Why? Because there are a whole... It

is just one tool in the tool box. Other powers we use, we take away

people's passports if we think they are about to travel. How many? I

cannot comment, it is a sensitive issue. Plenty of people are finding

their passport has been removed and at the same time we strip people of

citizenship to make sure they don't come back. On top of that, because

of the investment made in GCHQ, MI5 and counterterrorism, we have more

powers and more ability to monitor them. But are you using them enough?

Only seven TPIMs are in operation. You won't give me any of the other

measures at your disposal, but if they are only in single figures,

that doesn't seem to compare with the numbers who are being monitored.

Also, we have to strike a balance between... We have to satisfy the

court so we have to make sure there is enough evidence to restrict

people's freedoms. TPIMs do all sorts of good things to keep people

safe. It sends people away from where they live, it tags them... I

tell you why they are better. The control orders were on track to be

struck down by the courts because one of the things we have to satisfy

is the courts but we also have to satisfy, we have to make sure we get

the balance between the community is right and the measures we take. If

we alienate our communities, we won't get the intelligence that

allows us to catch it. There is no point in having more police and

intelligence services if you don't give them the powers to do the job.

Jeremy Corbyn were licensed James Bond to do precisely nothing. And --

thank you. The revelation that the Manchester

suicide bomber, 22-year-old Salman Abedi, was born in this

country has raised fresh concerns about the effectiveness of the UK's

counter-extremism policy. In a moment we'll be talking to two

people who've spent their careers investigating

radicalisation in the UK. Douglas Murray,

of the Henry Jackson Society, and Sara Khan, author of The Battle

for British Islam and CEO of the counter-extremism

organisation Inspire. We asked both for a personal take

on how to confront the problem of Islamist extremism.

First up, here's Douglas Murray. Even after all these dead,

all this mourning and defiance, We remain stuck in the John Lennon

response to terrorism - Our politicians still refuse

to accurately identify the sources of the problem,

and polite society This country gave asylum to

the Libyan parents of Salman Abedi. Their son repaid that generosity

by killing 22 British people, one for each year of life this

country had given him. We need to think far more

deeply about all this. Eastern Europe doesn't

have an Islamic terrorism problem France has the worst problem

because it has the most Islam. Are we ever going to draw

any lessons from this? For the time being, the game

is to be as inoffensive as possible. The rot isn't just within

the Muslim communities. Consider all those retired British

officials and others who shill, and are in the pay of the Saudis

and other foreign states, even while they pump the extreme

versions of Islam into our country. It is high time we

became serious too. Islamist extremism is

flourishing in our country. We're failing to defeat it,

so what can we do about it? Whenever I say we must counter those

Muslim organisations who are promoting hatred,

discrimination, and sometimes even violence, I'm often either ignored

by some politicians out of a misplaced fear of cultural

sensitivity, or I find myself experiencing abuse by some

of my fellow Muslims. These groups and their sympathisers

tour Muslim communities, hold events, and have hundreds

of thousands of followers Yet there is little counter

challenge to their toxic anti-Western narrative,

which includes opposition I've seen politicians

and charities partner with and support some of these

voices and groups. Many anti-racist groups

will challenge those on the far right but not Muslim hate preachers,

in the erroneous belief that to do But it's Islamophobic not

to challenge them because it implies Following the attack on Monday,

it cannot be business as usual. We must counter those

who seek to divide us. Sarah Karen Allen Douglas Murray

join me know. You wrote a book, strange death of Europe. What did

you mean in your film when you said, let's get serious? Several things.

Let me give you one example. The young man who carried out this

atrocious attack was a student at Salford University for two years. He

was on a campus which is, from its leadership to its student

leadership, opposes all aspects of the government's only counter

extremism programme. They boast they are boycotting it. They always did

this. The university he was at was against the only counter extremism

policy this state has. This is just one example of a much bigger

problem. What are you suggesting? Shut down the University? Force them

to change their policies? I think in the case of Salford, which

discourages students from reporting Islamic extremism... When you

discover you have produced a suicide bomber in Manchester, you should be

held responsible. What do you say to that? I think it is quite clear from

I am experienced there have been politicians who have undermined

Prevent, community organisations, Islamist groups who have been at the

forefront of undermining and countering Prevent, but also wider

counter extremism measures. Islamist -- Islamist extremes and has

flourished in this country. If Summer Rae had given us a crystal

ball ten years ago and said, look forward and you will see hundreds of

people leave this country to join Isis, we will have hundreds of

people convicted of Islamist offences, I think we would have been

quite shocked that things have got worse as opposed to getting better.

Douglas Murray, the essence of your argument when you made the

comparison between the numbers of Muslims in other countries is that

we have too much Islam in Britain? The aunt Tilly Muslim Brotherhood

give is that the answer to absolutely everything is Islam. Less

Islam is a good thing. Let me finish. The Islamic world is in the

middle of a very serious problem. It has been going on since the

beginning. I think it is not worth continuing to risk our own security

simply in order to be politically correct. I would disagree with

Douglas on that. Nobody is going to deny that since the end of the 20th

century there has been a rise in Islamist extreme terror

organisations. Yes, there is a crisis within contemporary Islam,

but there is a class. There are competing claims about what the

faith stands for. While we are seeing Islamist terror

organisations, leading theologians are saying that the concept of a

caliphate is outdated. Muslims should be adopting a human rights

culture. I entirely agree with that. There are obviously people trying to

counter that. I would urge us to take the long view. In the history

of Islam there have been many reformers. Most of the time they

have ended a up being the ones on the brunt of the violence. I deeply

resent what you and others do in this country. I want you to win. But

they are a Billy good minority. A poll last year found that two thirds

of British Muslims found they would not report a family member they

found to be involved in extremism to the police. You are proposing more

Draconian measures. I wish they could win. We should do everything

we can to support people like that. What we should recognise the scale

of the problem is beyond our current understanding. You counter

radicalisation on a university campus or online? Discussion we had

with Ben Wallace about the material that is out there. If we pursue in a

hard-line way perhaps the sort of thing Douglas Murray is suggesting,

gone is freedom of speech, gone is freedom of debate and discussion?

The best way to counter extremism is through the prism of human rights.

We cannot abandon our human rights to fight extremism. Where I think we

are going wrong, where there is a gap, is the lack of counter work to

challenge Islamist ideals. How many people are going to say we need to

counter that strict narrative? That is where we are not doing enough

work. What about the human rights point, that you cannot take away

people's human rights? I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting we

do things that ensure that 22 people don't get blown up on an average

Monday again, OK? Dissent to be opposed to people want to blow up

our daughters is not opposing human rights. If you're taking government

money and you are an institution like Salford University you should

be held responsible for not cooperating with standard security

measures. You can challenge extremism without abandoning human

rights. We have got to actually counter the Islamist narrative.

We're not doing enough. This is not about closing down free speech. This

is encouraging it. This is the most effective way of countering the

Islamist narrative. Why isn't it doing better? A number of reasons.

One is there is a denial taking place. A lot of apologetics. Part of

it is the way we talk about Muslims in this country. We use the term

Muslim community as if they are homogenous. There is a positive

trend but there is a negative trend among British Muslims. We need to

counter those promoting the idea that Muslims are part of a

collective identity. I agree. It is also the case there is massive push

back because a lot of Muslims are defending the faith in this country.

We think we can push them down a better path but they are defending

absolutely everything. We need to get real about that. Thank you very

much. It's just gone 11.35,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20

minutes, the Week Ahead. Welcome to Sunday Politics South -

my name's Peter Henley. Less than a fortnight to polling day

now, and we've gathered together a group of candidates

from Hampshire this week. Bob Seely from the Conservatives,

Judith Bunting from the Liberal Democrats,

Malcolm Jones from UKIP, Rosie Pearce from the Green Party,

and Alan Whitehead from Labour. Obviously we are all thinking about

Manchester, and that pours in campaigning. Allen, is it the wrong

time to talk about terrorism and solutions? Well, we're still in the

process obviously of coming to the General Election last lap, and what

I hope will happen as far as talking about it is concerned is that it is

done in a way that gives us proper ways forward for the future, and is

not caught up in sloganeering and the instant sound bite but

unfortunately characterising a lot -- capitalises a lot of elections

these days. So we need to think about it seriously, and rationally,

calmly and preferably when the election is over. So talking about

cuts to policing...? Oh, no, the cuts to policing...? Oh, no, the

question of what we need to do is an essential issue, but what I want to

make sure we do is that when we are thinking about where we go for the

future, it is done soberly, properly and clearly, and the question of

police resources for example is one of those sober calculation is that

needs to be taken in terms of what we do for the future. Because it is

quite clear in terms of the police cuts that have taken place over the

last few years, the police are not really in a position to do the sort

of things we want them to do for the future, if we are to get a long-term

policy in place to make sure that the terrorist threats are counted in

an effective and long-term, sustainable way. Bob Seely, is that

something people will be considering when they vote? They may well do.

When it comes to your original question, I think that we live in a

free society and we always need to be discussing and debating, and you

should always do so in a measured and considered way. And not to score

points. So I agree with some of the things that Alan was saying. I think

the police line is a bit premature, and there have been 1900 more jobs

in MI5, MI6 and GCHQ 's -- GCHQ. We are investing in quite a lot --

investing quite a lot in those agencies. I don't think your leader

has been hugely supportive of that. Michael Fallon has said Jeremy

Corbyn is doing the country down talking about police cuts. I think

he's probably got quite a good point, I watched Andrew Neil's

interview with Jeremy Corbyn, it was pretty damning. But again, this was

ten, 15 years ago, the things he did in the past, we are talking about

different forms of terrorism. Judith Bunting, do you think that that sort

of debate is the right sort of want to be having at the moment about

Jeremy Corbyn's links, supposedly, with the IRA? Frankly we need to be

looking ahead to combating police cuts. Because as you said, there is

nothing going to happen if the police are not equipped to manage.

So we are putting forward a proposal -- a policy for an additional 300

million a year for them to decide what we are fighting, and if it

needs to be targeted at fighting terrorism, and increasing community

inclusion, we have in Newbury really good community relations, and last

weekend I was at an event held by the Bangladeshi centre, and our

police whether eating chicken and beans with the local Indian

community. They were not there in a pompous policing way, it needs

resource in, and winner to put the resources in. Matt Jones, is that

the way forward, eating chicken? I think the police need to pay a wider

part in community. We do not see police on the beat any more. When I

was a kid there were more round. But Suzanne Evans and your party have

raised the question is about community relations in a much more

fundamental way. Do you think Ukip ought to be making that point

strongly between now and polling day? Yes, and I think we need to be

looking at a cross-party agreement at how we go forward to tackle this

problem. I think it is important that one party doesn't do it for

five years, and then all that is ditched and we have to do it all

again. Alan, the comments you made were a little bit different to what

Jeremy Corbyn has been accused of by Bob here as well. Do you think it is

right that he is being attacked in the way he is, rather than there

being cross-party agreement? The way he is being attacked is precisely

the sort of sloganeering that I drew attention to. And actually has no

bearing on what we actually -- need to think about. These are

fundamental questions for a Prime Minister. Yes indeed, but the

question of what we do in the long-term is something that an

entire Government has to think about, and an entire Government

which is able to put forward policies which, among other things,

make sure we've got the resources to deal with the issue, and make sure

we've got the community cohesion which also needs resources, to make

sure that the issue is put properly on the sidelines of mainstream

thinking and mainstream discussion in the way that it should be. So

there's a lot to do, but in this to be done soberly and carefully. Alan,

let's use that freedom constructively. We are making a

serious comment about Jeremy Corbyn's record in never voting for

some of the measures that both new Labour and the Conservatives have

done to try and improve our security. He has always voted

against it, in the same way that SDLP and senior members in Northern

Ireland said he supported the IRA and not the peace process. But is

this something we should be talking about right now when people are

grieving? I think there is a danger for people to forego their

fundamental rights. When we talk about security we say it is bad that

people are not voting for security measures, and yes, we do indeed take

some measures to ensure security in the country, but we also need to

focus on community cohesion, make sure our voices are included, we

cannot just talk about... Lots of people are referring to Muslims

here, we cannot talk about Muslims with no Muslims at the table. But

Ukip have stirred up so much hate in the country. After Brexit we had

more -- a surge in hate crime against minorities. And I don't

think it is fair for you to stand there and say, support the

committees... It is the media that stir up hatred crimes, and we have

been branded really badly. I actually spent nine years teaching

diversity in equality courses. Let's not have stereotypes in any way with

your party or the media or anyone else.

Before the Manchester bombing, much of the political debate

was centring around adult social care and how we pay for what's only

going to become more of an issue as the population lives longer

and the number of older people gets bigger.

Before we let the politicians loose on it, we went out to Petersfield

in Hampshire to see what some of the voters there thought

about the issue, and what they'd heard from the politicians so far.

They've decimated the community nursing service.

And now I'm getting old, what's going to happen?

Well, we actually have a grandmother,

her great-grandmother, that's in care, and I don't agree

that she should sell her house to pay for her own care.

She's paid for her house all her life, so...

I think there should be something in place for adults, without them

We've all got to pay so much, let's face it, you know,

But I don't think you should lose everything.

Especially with the part of the world we live in,

Double that figure, maybe 250 would be a correct figure.

I've talked about it to my older friends,

and they all seem to think, you know, you do all your work and

get your house, pay your mortgage, all the rest of it...

And we'd like to leave a little to our children.

I'm nearly 80, so I really do need to know.

You know, people that have fought in both world wars have to then sell

everything they've worked for all their life, all the taxes

that they've paid all their life, just to keep in some

I think if you ask any member of the public, any age,

And they shouldn't pay for it at all.

Clearly a lot of sympathy for people who have paid all their lives. Where

should the money be coming from to pay for adult social care? We want

to follow the recommendations of the Dilnot Report, and that's what the

Tories threw out. They have done a U-turn. They are not being clear on

the cap, and if you look at the Royal Borough of Maidenhead, where

Theresa May actually stands, if you have a couple in a house and one of

them goes into residential care, they use the value of the house to

pay for that care. When that person in the care home dies, the other

one, who is still living in the house, has a debt, and the interest

rate on that rockets to 8% a year. So that individual left in the house

has to sell the house, pay a mega- debt and cannot look after

themselves in the way they see fit. And that is a Tory policy which is

already in action in Maidenhead. If Theresa May wants the rest of the

country to go that way, I think it is shameful. I think there are a lot

of scare stories about this. Currently, under the current system,

you have to get down to your last ?23,000 before the State stops

taking your money for care. But they want to take the money for your

house? If you are by yourself, you will have to sell your home, and you

are done to your last 23,000 before the state stops taking money and

starts to pay for your nursing home or your care costs. Under the system

that we've announced, which will be reviewed after the election, you are

guaranteed 100,000. You're guaranteed four times the amount. In

a macro is there a commitment to that in your manifesto? -- is there

a commitment to that in your manifesto? This will have to raise

more money... It will raise more money, what it? Whatever the changes

that are developed after the election before. There are going to

be 2 million more people off -- over 75. Let me give you an example, I

was out doorknocking, and I had an elderly gentleman who said, I saved

up for five years to pay for my home. And he didn't like the policy

at first and I hope I persuaded him, and I said to him, there are young

people now who have saved up for ten and 15 and 20 years. They don't have

a hope in hell of paying for their own home. We need to find a way of

making the system fair for you, but also fell for the youngsters who are

in 25 grand a year or 30 grand year jobs, and they look at house prices

going up incrementally every year. What we are doing is called

leadership. Everybody else is attacking us, but we have to take

responsibility for the country and the bigger picture, and look after

the older generation. -- younger generation. But just because the

Tories are horrible for older people doesn't mean they are good for

younger people. Just like health care, social care is something we

all might need during our lives, let's not forget a third of people

who are currently receiving help from the Government on paying for

social care are disabled, not necessarily older people. So these

people... It could be any of us... I am in a lot of debt for my tuition

fees. Do you know how many billions we pay a year just paying interest

rates on the national debt. You shouldn't have let it keep on

growing. 39 billion a year just on interest payments... We need to run

the country for the future, without loading up dead on our youngsters.

?350 million on a department for ?350 million on a department for

exiting the European Union. It is leading us off a cliff edge. You

have been in Parliament watching the debt being paid off. It seems it is

what people still want, they don't want to spend a lot more in taxes,

but they do want proper adult social care. Yes, they do, and the debate

we are having at the moment is about a reversal of what had previously

been the idea that there should be a universal payment, paid by

everybody, to progress social care, and the true scandal of this policy

change that is being undertaken at the moment is that people in their

own homes are going to be paying with their own homes, for their own

care. But that happens at the moment... The policy has changed, it

is quite specifically set out in the Conservative manifesto, and it is

really rather write that anyone who even quotes the Conservative

manifesto is being told they are putting scare stories are in, well,

it is scary, but it is in the manifesto, which is a change away

from just requiring people who are in residential care to pay, but

people who are in their own homes to pay, an entirely different way of

doing domiciliary care about was the case in the past. -- than was the

case. What we need to do for the future is make sure we have a

socialised system across the board, but domiciliary and residential

care, when it all jointly pay what yes, is going to be a cost, but is

going to be a cost which is going to be very important in terms of that

huge modern -- -- number of elderly people coming forward. Malcolm, I

haven't heard from you. In a macro I think it is wrong people should have

to sell their homes. People in our part of the world, the equity they

have gained, you would let them keep the whole lot? Yellow macro yes,

because we are good to put in ?2 billion from the foreign aid budget.

Yellow macro if we look at savings within the NHS, we need to audit the

management structure, why do we have people who run the NHS Trust being

paid more than Theresa May gets paid to run the country? If we bring

efficiencies in, if we... You are going to kill the salaries of NHS

managers? Let's pause for a second. We hear a lot about

what the politicians think are the answers -

but what might the voters come Some of the people we met

in Petersfield earlier in the week had some ideas for ways we might do

it all rather differently. In Germany what they do is,

actually as you work, not only do you pay the NHS

contribution but you also pay But later on, if you require care,

you can actually get money from the state to pay

towards your care. Well, I've always thought that

people who are in work, if they were asked to pay ?5 extra

a month to invest in the NHS and elderly health care,

then I think most people would be I think our systems are underfunded,

and they need to look at more innovative ways of funding them

instead of letting them There's a lot of older people

who are still mobile enough, and still able to care

for themselves, but they're really There's lots of big houses in this

country with one or two people living in them -

why not find a way of getting older It sounds crazy, but house-sharing

for older people, it would be, you know, a team effort for a whole

world of, you know, of their little environment -

for their housework, for their gardening, you know -

and they would have company, Share their, you know,

experience together, of life, rather than all living in little

houses by themselves. Rosie, what are you putting forward

on social care? A nationalised system that is free at the point of

delivery. We need to refinance the care system at the moment, which is

failing largely due to cuts to local authority money, so we want to put

?1 billion into social care over the next five years. That money will

come from general taxation. -- eight billion pounds. We want in the

longer term to make sure we have a national care service, similar in

scope to our National Health Service, so that we actually have an

all enveloping care service, which is essentially free when people need

it, with contributions when they can afford it. We are looking at a fully

funded social care service, that -- people within it are not in zero

hours contract. They are treated disgustingly. I want for seven years

on a zero hours contract for the TUC of all people, and it is disgraceful

that people are suffering when they are trying to help other people.

Judith, the Liberal Democrats? We are proposing a 1p at every level of

tax increase, and were we to win, we would think that tax in

straightaway. Where UN coalition, would you insist on that? We are not

going into coalition with any party in favour of Brexit. We have been

working for a while on a cross-party Commission on the NHS where we talk

about instituting a new tax, may be developing the national insurance

contributions, so we can unite health and social care and do with

this in a practical, what the Times called a clever, coherent and costed

way. The Conservatives? Yellow macro some very good ideas from reviewers.

We are trying to act in the national interest, and a find a balance that

is fair to the elderly, and is fair to younger people as well who are

struggling to get on the housing ladder. So we have to act in the

national interest and find a balance that suits everybody. And I notice

we are being criticised from left and right and from the alternative

left and alternative right, so it makes me think that actually,

despite the fact some people don't like this policy, it is the best

thing for the national interest, and protects youngsters and the elderly

as well by giving them a minimum of ?100,000 they will be able to pass

on, which is four times greater than the ?23,000 which is the lower level

now. That's the Sunday Politics

in the South, thanks I'll be back on Tuesday with our

election debate, BBC One at 10:45 - We'll have candidates from each

of the five parties, and an audience of local voters

to give them a good grilling. Hope you can join us then -

for now though, it's back to Jo. 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.