14/05/2017 Sunday Politics Wales

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

Theresa May unveils plans to build many more affordable homes

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

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

to fund public services, but will traders just

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

insists he can win this election - so which way will

Neil Hamilton joins us for the latest of our interviews.

And one-legged Labour-supporting seagulls.

We look at the Green electoral offer and here, what the parties are

saying about tackling the air pollution problem in London.

And with me, our own scientifically selected focus group

of political pundits - they're not so much

undecided as clueless - Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

So, we've got two new policies this morning.

Labour say they will introduce a financial transaction tax

if they win the general election and what they're calling

"the biggest crackdown on tax avoidance in the country's history".

The Conservatives say they'll work with local authorities in England

to build council houses with the right to buy.

Theresa May says the policy "will help thousands of people

get on the first rung of the housing ladder".

Steve, what do you make of them? I have been conditioned after doing

tax and spend debates in pre-election periods for many

decades to treat policy is not as literal but as arguments. In other

words if you look back to 2015 the Tory plan to wipe out the deficit

was never going to happen and yet it framed and large event. In that

sense the Robin Hood tax is a sensible move for Labour to make at

this point because it is part of a narrative of reconfiguring taxation

to be fair. Treating it as an argument rather than something that

would happen in day one of Labour government is sensible. In terms of

building houses Theresa May said right from the beginning when she

was in Number Ten that there is a housing deficit in this country

rather than the economic deficit George Osborne was focusing on, and

this is an example of trying to get house-building going. It seems

entirely sensible, not sure how it works with right to buy but again as

framing of a 90 minute it makes sense. I disagree with Steve on one

front which is how sensible Theresa May's policy is on the housing

announcement. I think more broadly these two announcements have

something in common which is that over the next 24 hours both will

probably unravel in different ways. Ye of little faith! The Mayor of

London has already said he doesn't agree with this, and when people see

the actual impact of what looks like a populist tax will very potentially

affect people's pensions, it might become a lot less popular. On the

Tory housing plans, I think it is difficult to imagine how they are

going to implement this huge, what looks like a huge land and property

grab. Through compulsory purchase orders, which are not a simple

instrument. They say they will change the law but really the idea

of paying people below the market value for their assets is not

something I can see sitting easily with Tory backbenchers or the Tories

in the House of Lords. Tom. Both would appear superficially to be

appealing to traditional left and traditional right bases. What is

more Tory than right to buy, then councils sell on these houses, and

Labour slapping a massive tax on the city. The Tories' plan, I would say

look a bit deeper and all of the Tory narrative from the last six

years which hasn't worked well is talking about the private sector

increasing supply in the market. Now Mrs May is talking about the role

for the state after all so this is the shift creeping in. On the Labour

transaction tax, one of the most interesting things I heard in days

was from Paul Mason, former BBC correspondent, now a cog in Easter

extreme. On Newsnight he said don't worry about whether the Labour

manifesto will add up, I'm promising it will, the bigger Tory attack line

should be what on earth will be the macroeconomic effect of taking so

much tax out of the system. Very well, we shall see. At least we have

some policies to talk about. Now, on Tuesday Labour

will launch its manifesto. But we've already got a pretty good

idea of what's in it - that's because most of its contents

were leaked to the media Labour has a variety of spending

pledges including an extra ?6 billion a year for the NHS,

an additional ?8 billion for social care over the lifetime

of the next parliament, as well as a ?250 billion

in infrastructure over The party will support the renewal

of the Trident submarine system, although any Prime Minister should

be extremely cautious about its use, and the party

will hold a strategic defence and security review immediately

after the election. In terms of immigration,

Labour will seek "reasonable management of migration",

but it will not make "false Elsewhere, university tuition

fees will be abolished, and the public sector pay cap,

which limits pay rises for public sector workers

to 1%, will be scrapped. The party also aims to renationalise

the railways, the Royal Mail and the National Grid,

as well as creating at least one A senior Labour backbencher

described it to the Sunday Politics as a manifesto for a leadership

who don't "give a toss about the wider public",

and several other Labour candidates told us they thought it

had been deliberately leaked by the leadership,

with one suggesting the leak was intended to "bounce

the National Executive" And we're joined now from Salford

by the Shadow Business Secretary, Welcome to the programme. The draft

manifesto proposed to renationalise the number of industry. You will

wait for the franchises to run out rather than buy them out at the

moment so can you confirm the railways will not be wholly

nationalised until 2030, after three Labour governments, and Jeremy

Corbyn will be 80? I'm not going to comment on leaks, you will just have

to be patient and wait to see what is in our manifesto. But you have

already announced you will nationalise the railways, so tell me

about it. We have discussed taking the franchises into public ownership

as they expire, however the detail will be set out in the manifesto so

I'm not prepared to go into detail until that policy is formally laid

out on Tuesday. That doesn't sound very hopeful but let's carry on. You

will also nationalise the National Grid, it has a market capitalisation

of ?40 billion, why do you want to nationalise that? Again, I'm not

going to speculate on leaks, you will just have to be patient. But

you said you will nationalise the National Grid so tell's Y. The leaks

have suggested but you will just have to wait and see what the final

manifesto states on that one. So is it a waste of time me asking you how

you will pay for something that costs 40 billion? Be patient, just

couple of days to go, but what I would say is there is growing

pressure from the public to reform the utilities sector. The

Competition and Markets Authority stated in 2015 that bill payers were

paying over till debt -- ?2 billion in excess of what they should be

paying so there is a clear need for reform. The bills we get are from

the energy companies, you are not going to nationalise them, you are

going to nationalise the distribution company and I wondered

what is the case for nationalising the distribution company? As I said,

our full plans will be set out on Tuesday. In relation to the big six

energy companies, we know in recent years they have been overcharging

customers... There's no point in answering questions I am not asking.

I am asking what is the case for nationalising the National Grid?

There is a case for reforming the energy sector as a whole and that

looks at the activities of the big six companies and it will look at

other aspects too. You will have to be patient and wait until Tuesday.

What about the Royal Mail? Again, you will have to wait until Tuesday.

Why can't you just be honest with the British voter? We know you are

going to do this and you have a duty to explain. I'm not even arguing

whether it is right or wrong. The Royal Mail was sold off and we know

it was sold under value and British taxpayers have a reason to feel

aggrieved about that. There is a long-term strategy that would ensure

the Royal Mail was classified as a key piece of infrastructure but the

details of that will be set out in our manifesto because we want to

ensure businesses and households ensure the best quality of service

when it comes to their postal providers. You plan to borrow an

extra 25 billion per year, John McDonnell has already announced

this, on public investment, on top of the around 50 billion already

being planned for investment. You will borrow it all so that means, if

you can confirm, that many years after the crash by 2021, Labour

government would still be borrowing 75 billion a year. Is that correct?

We have set out ?250 billion of capital investment, and ?250 billion

for a national investment bank. Our financial and fiscal rules dictate

we will leave the Government in a state of less debt than we found it

at the start of the parliament so we won't increase the national debt at

the end of our Parliamentary term. How can you do that if by 2021 you

will still be borrowing around 75 billion a year, which is more than

we borrow at the moment? The 500 billion figure is set out over a

period of ten years, it's a figure that has been suggested by Peter

Helm from Oxford University as a figure that is necessary to bring us

in line with other industrial competitors. Similar figures have

been suggested by groups such as the CBI. By the way I have not included

all 500 billion, just the 250 billion on public spending, not the

extra money. You talk about the fiscal rules. The draft manifesto

said you will leave debt as a proportion of trend GDP law at the

end of each parliament, you have just said a version of that. What is

trend GDP? In clear terms we will ensure the debt we acquire will be

reduced by the end of the parliament. We won't leave the

Government finances in a worse state than we found them. OK, but what is

trend GDP? Our rule is we will ensure public sector net debt is

less than we found it when we came to power in Government on June the

8th. But that is not what your draft manifesto says. I'm not going to

comment on leaks, you are just going to have to wait until Tuesday to

look at the fine detail and perhaps we will have another chat then. You

have published your plans for corporation tax and you will

increase it by a third and your predictions assumed that will get an

extra 20 billion a year by the end of the parliament. But that assumes

the companies don't change their behaviour, that they move money

around, they leave the country or they generate smaller profits. Is

that realistic? You are right to make that point and you will see

when we set out our policies and costings in the manifesto that we

haven't spent all of the tax take. We have allowed for different

differentials and potential changes in market activity because that

would be approved and direction to take. But corporation tax is allowed

to be cut in France and the United States, it's only 12.5% in Dublin.

Many companies based in Britain are already wondering whether they

should relocate because of Brexit, if you increase this tax by a third

couldn't that clinch it for a number of them? No, we will still be one of

the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7. Let's look at what's

important for business. Cutting corporation tax in itself doesn't

improve productivity, or business investment and there's no suggestion

cutting corporation tax in recent years has achieved that. Businesses

need an investment in tools in things they need to thrive and

prosper, they also need to reduce the burden at the lower end of the

tax scale, before we get to the Prophet stage. One key example is

business rates. We have made the proposal to government to in --

exclude machinery so businesses can invest and grow operations in the

future but the Government refused. Corporation tax has been cut since

2010. When it was 28% it brought in ?43 billion a year. Now it is down

to 20%, it brought in ?55 billion a year. By cutting it in the last

year, it brought in 21% more, so what is the problem? It might have

brought in more money, but has it increased business investment in the

long term. It is not just about cutting corporation tax, but it is

on the ability of businesses to thrive and prosper. Business

investment in the UK is below are industrial competitors. Wages are

stagnating which doesn't indicate businesses are not doing well. Let

me get it right, you are arguing if we increase business tax by a third,

that will increase investment? I am not saying that. You just did. Know

I didn't, I said reducing business tax isn't enough, you have to invest

in the things businesses need to thrive and prosper. You have also

got to lessen the burden on business. You have announced a

financial transaction tax. Your own labour Mayor of London said he has

vowed to fight it. He said I do not want a unilateral tax on business in

our city, so why are you proceeding with it? This isn't a new

initiative, there is a growing global pressure to make sure we have

fairness in the financial sector. Ordinary British people are paying

for our banking crisis they didn't cause. Another important point,

stamp duty reserve tax was brought in in the 1600 and there have been

little reforms. The sector has changed and we have do provide

changes to the system for that change. High-frequency trading where

we have a state of affairs where a lot of shares are traded on

computers within milliseconds. We need a tax system that keeps up with

that. What happens if they move the computers to another country? Emily

Thornaby said this morning, other countries had already introduced a

financial transaction tax, what other countries have done that?

There are ten countries looking at introducing a transaction tax. Which

ones have done it so far? They will be later announcing a final package,

going through the finer detail at the moment. But the European

Commission tried to get this done in 2011 and it still hasn't happened in

any of these countries. But you are going to go ahead unilaterally and

risk these businesses, which generate a lot of money, moving to

other jurisdictions. There is not a significant risk of that happening.

The stamp duty reserve tax is levied at either where the person or

company is domiciled or where the instrument is issued rather than

worth the transaction takes place. This tax in itself is not enough to

make people leave this country in terms of financial services because

there is more to keep these businesses here in terms of the

investment we are making, the economy that Labour will build, in

terms of productivity improvement we will see. Thank you very much,

Rebecca Long-Bailey. And listening to that was the Home

Office Minister, Brandon Lewis. Over the years, you have got

corporation tax by 20%, it is lower than international standards, so why

are so many global companies who make money out of Great Britain,

still not paying 20%? It is one of the problems with the point Labour

were making and Rebecca could not answer, these companies can move

around the world. One of the important things is having a low tax

economy but these businesses, it encourages them to come at a rate

they are prepared to pay. People may say they are right, if they were

paying 19, 20% incorporation tax. But they are not. Google runs a

multi-million pound corporation and did not pay anywhere near 20%. There

are companies that are trading internationally and that is why we

have to get this work done with our partners around the world. Has there

been an improvement? It is more than they were paying before. Whether it

is Google or any other company, alongside them being here, apart

from the tax they pay, it is the people they employ. The deal was, if

you cut the business tax, the corporation tax on profits, we would

get more companies coming here and more companies paying their tax. It

seems it doesn't matter how low, a number of companies just pay a

derisory amount and you haven't been able to change that. As you

outlined, the income taken from the changing corporation tax has gone

up. That is from established British companies, not from these

international companies. It is because more companies are coming

here and paying tax. That is a good thing. There is always more to do

and that is why we want to crack down. In the last few weeks in the

Finnish Parliament, Labour refused to put to another ?8.7 billion of

tax take we could have got by cracking down further. You claim to

have made great progress on cracking down on people and companies to pay

the tax they should. But the tax gap is the difference between what HMRC

takes in and what it should take in. It has barely moved in five years,

so where is the progress? He have brought in 150 billion more where we

have cracked down on those tax schemes. The gap is still the same

as it was five years ago. It's gone from 6.8, 26.5. It has gone down.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor said they want to

continue work on to get more money on these companies while still

having a competitive rate to encourage these companies. While big

business and the wealthy continue to prosper, the Office for Budget

Responsibility tell us those on average earnings in this country

will be earning less in real terms by 2021 than they did in 2008. How

can that be fair? I don't see it that way. I haven't seen the figures

you have got. What I can say to you, Andrew, we have made sure the

minimum wage has gone up, the actual income tax people pay has gone down.

So in their pocket, real terms, people have more money. You are the

self-styled party of work. We keep emphasising work. Under your

government you can work for 13 years and still not earn any more at the

end of it, and you did at the start. Where is the reward for effort in

that? I have not seen those figures. There are 2.8 million more people,

more jobs in economy than there was. 1000 jobs every day and people are

working and developing through their careers. This is what I thought was

odd in what Rebecca was saying, investing in people is what the

apprenticeship levy is about, companies are investing their works

force to take more opportunities that there. We are talking about

fairness, politicians talk about hard-working people and we know the

average earnings are no higher than they were in 2008. We know the pay

and bonuses of senior executives have continued to grow and the

Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown 3 million of the poorest

households will lose an average of ?2500 a year in the next Parliament,

benefits frozen, further sanctions kick in. 3 million of the poorest

losing 2500. Under the Tories, one law for the rich and another for the

poor. It is quite wrong. First of all, we have got to be fair to the

taxpayer who is funding the welfare and benefit system. Which is why the

welfare was right. Get more people in work and then it is important to

get more people upscaling. As that allowance rises, people have more of

the money they earn in their pocket to be able to use in the economy.

People will be worse off. 2500, among the poorest already. They will

have more money in their pocket as we increase the allowance before

people pay tax. We have seen millions of people coming out of tax

altogether. The reason I ask these questions, you and the Prime

Minister go on and on about the just about managing classes. I am talking

about the just about managing and below that. It is all talk, you

haven't done anything for them. We have made sure they have an

increasing minimum wage, it has gone up more under us than any other

previous government. Their wages will be still lower in real terms.

Let me come on to this plan for housing. We have announced a new

plan to increase affordable housing, social housing, some council housing

and social housing built by the associations. How much money is

behind this? It is part of the 1.4 billion announced in the Autumn

Statement. How many homes will you get for 1.4 billion? That depends on

the negotiations with local authorities. It is local

authorities, who know the area best. I will not put a number on that. 1.4

billion, if you price the house at 100,000, which is very low,

particularly for the South, back at you 14,000 new homes. That is it.

What we have seen before, how the local government can leveraged to

build thousands more homes. That is what we want to see across the

country. It is not just about the money, for a lot of local

authorities it is about the expertise and knowledge on how to do

this. That is why support from the housing communities minister will

help. What is the timescale, how many more affordable homes will be

built? I will not put a number on it. You announced it today, so you

cannot tell me how many more or what the target is? It is a matter of

working with the local authorities who know what their local needs are,

what land they have got available. What we saw through the local

elections with the Metro mayors, they want to deliver in their areas,

whether it is the West of England, the north-east, Liverpool,

Manchester and we want to work with them. You have said variations of

this for the past seven years and I want some credibility. When you

cannot tell us how much money, what the target and timescale is, and

this government, under which affordable house building has fallen

to a 24 year low. 1.2 million families are on waiting lists for

social housing to rent. That is your record. Why should we believe a word

you say? This is different to what we have been doing over the last two

years. We want to develop and have a strong and stable economy that can

sustain that 1.4 billion homes. This is important. In 2010, we inherited

the lowest level of house building, 75,000 new homes. That is about

189,000 over the last four years. That is a big step forward after the

crash, getting people back into the industry. More first-time buyers

onto the market. Final question, in 2010, 2011, your first year in

government, there were 60,000 affordable homes built. May not be

enough, but last day it was 30 2000. So why should we trust anything you

say about this? On housing, we have delivered. We have delivered more

social housing. Double what Labour did in 13 years, in just five years.

This is what this policy is about, working with local authorities to

deliver more homes to people in their local areas. Thank you.

Now, they have a deficit of between 15 and 20% in the polls,

but Jeremy Corbyn and those around him insist Labour can win.

If the polls are right they've got three and half weeks to change

voters' minds and persuade those fabled undecided voters

We enlisted the polling organisation YouGov to help us find out how

the performance of party leaders will affect behaviour

Leeds, a city of three quarters of a million people,

eight Parliamentary seats and home to our very own focus group.

Our panel was recruited from a variety of backgrounds

and the majority say they haven't decided who to vote for yet.

Watching behind the glass, two experts on different sides

Giles Cunningham, who headed up political press at Downing Street

under David Cameron and Aaron Bastani, Corbin supporter,

under David Cameron and Aaron Bastani, Corbyn supporter,

I think Theresa May sees herself as a pound shop Thatcher.

Milliband's policies but when it came

about who you want, if you wake up on maybe a 2015,

We found in a couple of focus groups, people saying

we'd be quite relieved, even though some of those same

people have been saying we quite like the Labour policies.

I think the fact that Corbyn's going so hard on his values,

this is a really progressive manifesto, they live

But I think that's a new challenge, that wasn't there in 2015.

Is there anyone here that you don't recognise?

After a little warm up, the first exercise, recognising

I think it's nice to have a strong woman in politics, I do.

But I've got to say, when she comes on the news,

I kind of do think, here we go again.

Tell me about Tim Farron, what are your impressions of Tim Farron?

It isn't going to do anything, it isn't going to change anything.

You'll be surprised to hear it's actually the Greens.

Strong and stable leadership in the national interest.

Yes, Team May, it's the British equivalent of make

What do we think about this one for the many and not the few?

It's not quite as bad as strong and stable,

but it will probably get on our nerves after a while.

We must seize that chance today and every day until June the 8th.

But that's not quite my question, my question is,

if you are Prime Minister, we will leave, come hell or high

water, whatever is on the table at the end of the negotiations?

If we win the election, we'll get a good deal with Europe.

Assertive and in control and he felt comfortable

But the second one, I thought he was very hesitant.

I thought he was kind of, hovering around, skirting around

and that's the second time I've seen a similar

interview with the question being asked regarding Brexit.

I don't think I'd have any confidence with him

You think you are going up against some quite strong people,

how are you going to stand up for us?

When you are in negotiations, you need to be tough.

And actually is right to be tough sometimes,

particularly when you are doing something for the country.

There's a reason for talking about strong and stable leadership.

It's about the future of the country, it's

It's just that people kind of listen to that kind of thing and think

Both on The One Show and in the news.

She attracts the public better than what Corbyn does.

She didn't answer the question in a more articular way than Corbyn

Imagine that Theresa May is an animal.

So, in your minds, what animal is coming to mind

I've done a Pekinese because I think she's all bark and no bite.

Alpaca because she's superior looking and woolly

I don't think his policies are for the modern, real world.

A mouse because they are weak and they can be easily bullied,

but also they can catch you by surprise if you're

What do you take away from what you saw then,

and what message would you send back to the Tories now?

I think what came over is people see Theresa May as a strong politician,

not everyone likes her, but you don't need to be

liked to be elected, because ultimately it's about who do

you trust with your future and your security.

I think what I also take out of that focus group,

was it was a group of floating voters, there was no huge appetite

for the Lib Dems and there was no huge appetite for Ukip.

So my messaged back to CCHQ would be stick to the plan.

I thought the response to the manifesto was excellent.

It's clear that people aren't particularly keen on Theresa May,

There are some associations with her about strength and stability,

which is exactly what the Tory party want of course, but they are not

positive and nobody thinks that she has a vision

So, what I'd say the Jeremy Corbyn, what I'd say to the Labour Party is,

they need to really emphasise the manifesto in

Jeremy Corbyn himself has to perform out of his skin and I think

he has to reemphasise those characteristics which may be have

come to the fore may be over the last 12 months,

resilience, strength and the fact that he's come this far,

why not take that final step and go into ten Downing Street?

We're joined now by the American political consultant

For the sake of this discussion, assume the polls at the moment are

broadly right, is there any hope for Mr Corbyn in the undecided voters?

Know, and this is a very serious collection with serious consequences

to who wins. Nobody cares whether you can draw and what animal they

represent, they want to know where they stand, and I felt that was

frivolous. I come to Britain to watch elections because I learned

from here. Your elections are more substantial, more serious, more

policy and less about personality and that peace was only about

personality. That's partly because Mrs May has decided to make this a

presidential election. You can see on the posters it is all Team May. I

agree with that, and in her language she says not everyone benefits from

a Conservative government, I don't see how using anything Republicans

have used in the past. In fact her campaign is more of a centrist

Democrats but it is a smart strategy because it pushes Corbyn further to

the left. Of course you said Hillary Clinton have won. On election night

the polling was so bad in America, the exit polls that were done, the

BBC told America she had won. No, I was anchoring the programme that

night, I ignored your tweet. The BBC had the same numbers. Yes, but we

did not say she had won, I can assure you of that. Because of

people like you we thought she had but we didn't broadcast it. That was

a smart approach. My point is other than teasing you, maybe there is

hope for Jeremy Corbyn. I think you will have one of the lowest turnout

in modern history and I think Labour will fall to one of the lowest

percentages, not percentage of number of seats they have had, and

this will be a matter of soul-searching for both political

parties. What you do with a sizeable majority, and she has a

responsibility to tell the British people exactly what happens as she

moves forward. He and Labour will have to take a look at whether they

still represent a significant slice of the British population. Do you

see a realignment in British politics taking place? I see a

crumbling of the left and yet there is still a significant percentage of

the British population that once someone who is centre-left. And they

like a lot of Mr Corbyn's policies. I'm listening to Michael foot. I

went to school here in the 1980s and I feel like I'm watching the Labour

Party of 35 years ago, in a population that wants to focus on

the future, not the past. Thank you. It's just gone 11.35,

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

in Scotland, who leave us now Hello and welcome once again

to Sunday Politics Wales. Well, this was the week

when the general election We'll have the latest from

the campaign trail in a few minutes. But first the latest in our series

of interviews with the main Welsh The party's leader in the Assembly,

Neil Hamilton, is here with me now. Good morning. I remember a while ago

interviewing you and you said that Ukip is a permanent feature of the

political landscape in Wales now. After those local elections a couple

of weeks ago, that can't be a claim you can make any longer, is it? Yes,

because the big difference between Wales and the rest of the United

Kingdom is that in the Welsh Assembly elections, we have

proportional representation system in voting, unlike in the general

election which is happening now, where there is a binary squeeze on

small parties by the Tories and Labour, squeezing out the smaller

parties. That won't happen in the Assembly elections in four years'

time. This general election has come at a very inopportune time for Ukip.

We have got a new leader who had not had a chance to bed himself in, we

have still got to communicate what unit -- Ukip is foreclosed Brexit,

and we have the time to do that for 20/20. It sounds like you are

preparing the ground for a disappointing set of results. We

don't have any MPs at the moment so we have got nothing to lose. This

election is a work in progress to us. My message to people who voted

Ukip in the past who might now be tempted to vote for Theresa May is

that she doesn't need your vote because she is going to win by a

massive majority anyway. We need Ukip to be able insurers policy to

get the best from Brexit. But when you hear Paul Nuttall say if Theresa

May gets a good deal from Brexit, he is happy for Ukip to lose votes, it

sounds like you are waving the white flag already. But he doesn't believe

she is going to get a good deal. She has been Home Secretary or Prime

Minister for the last seven years, now standing on a programme of

reducing immigration to the tens of thousands, she has added 2 million

people to the British pop -- population. We need to be there to

keep her on track. We would never have had a referendum in the first

place but for Ukip. That is your message but it does seem that the

population, the voters, just aren't lit -- listening. The sense you get

from you get now is that you are a party in search of a purpose and

there is no point to you. That is what the polls tell us but things

can change in the middle of an election campaign. I remember the

1992 election when Neil Kinnock thought it was a done deal and then

we had the Sheffield rally and Labour lost big time. So things can

change. I hope as we move through this election campaign, Ukip voters

from last time we'll see the sense of keeping Ukip in the game to put

pressure on Theresa May to deliver the best Brexit for Britain, which

otherwise she might be tempted to give away. But beyond Brexit, what

did Ukip stand for? We have a full programme for this election which

will be announced in our manifesto launch very shortly. Let me mention

a handful. We would slash the foreign aid budget by ?8 billion to

put the money into health service? --. We would scrap green taxes. We

would take Britain out of the European Commission of human rights

and restore the sovereignty Bill of court. That is Brexit. Which green

taxes would you scrap? We would get rid of charges on people's

electricity bills which are necessary to pay subsidies. Where do

you get the figure from? That is the conventional figure for the

totality. The regulator says ?100 off the average energy Bill. Patrick

O'Flynn, your economic spokesman, says its ?100 of the Bill. Why are

you seeing 300? That is the figure I have used all along. I believe it to

be correct. Is your economic spokesman Ron? There are different

kinds of taxes, environmental charges, which are added to people's

electricity. If you look at your electricity Bill, roughly a fifth is

identified as... But the regulator says it is ?100. Your economic

spokesman says it is ?100. Your average electricity Bill in this

country is ?1500 a year of which 20% is green charges. It is on your

Bill. When we look at migration, the policy from Ukip is one in, one out.

Net immigration down to zero in five years' time. That is the aim. We are

not going to be the government of the country. That is what we think

is achievable. Theresa May says she wants to bring immigration down to

tens of thousands so if she can bring it down from around 300,000,

it is not a great step to bring it down to zero. But presumably you

can't be counting that has anything will happen between now and 2019

because we are still in the EU. We would introduce a points-based

system such as they have in Australia. There would be temporary

permits for people to come and work year for seasonal reasons, fruit

pickers and so on, as needed. But the British government would be able

to decide for itself what its annual target is. Australia has an annual

target. But Australia doesn't have a one in, one out policy. Isn't that

just pushing a potential stranglehold on the economy. If the

economy was growing, we would want more people to fill the jobs being

created. Why are you putting this arbitrary figure of zero net

migration down? We are adding a city the size of Cardiff to our operation

every year at the moment. We think that there needs to be a moratorium

within a reasonable timescale on immigration in order to get the

system under control. Yes, it can vary from year to year and that will

be an annual decision for the Home Secretary and the government to

take. At the moment we can't take that decision because we can't

control EU immigration. But we can control immigration from outside the

EU and the government isn't doing it. But it varies from year to year.

That zero Tadic, does it remain? It will be open to review every single

year. It depends what the needs of the economy are and what are the

pressures on public services which will be influenced if the numbers

are too great. But that is very different from what Paul Nuttall is

saying. Within five years, net immigration down to zero. What you

are saying is different. What we are saying is that our aim should be

stability in the numbers and from there on, it would be an annual

review, which is what happens in all countries. So it is not something

which is difficult. It takes time to set the system up. So that target of

achieving this in five years, it doesn't sound achievable from what

you are saying. Ukip is not going to be the government of the country so

it is a bit like asking how many angels are dancing on the head of a

pin. So why bother having a manifesto? Why make promises? I

could sit here and say we are in the game to win, and indeed we are, but

in reality we are not going to be the government on the 9th of June.

We want to get a good vote out of the election to take us to the next

stage. How likely is it that you can be the man to achieve that? If you

are looking at the polls, the most recent polls we have in Wales have

your personal ratings at the lowest that anybody has ever had in any of

these polls. It is 1.9 out of ten on average for all parties. It is only

three out of ten among Ukip voters. Are you part of the problem? I am

only the leader of Ukip group in the Assembly. I am not seeking to be

Prime Minister of the UK. But you are a leading member of the party. I

have come into this to do a job, to lead the Ukip group in the Assembly,

because I have got a great deal of political experience as a member of

Parliament, as a government minister, and I have been around a

long time and so I have got certain advantages that I have been able to

bring to professionalise Ukip in Wales and to get is the kind of

media attention which is going to enable us to go forward. I don't

have long-term political ambitions beyond this. Thank you very much for

your time this morning. So, no sooner had the local election

ended that the general It's the fifth poll over

the last two years. Spare a thought for those long

suffering party activists. We love it of course,

as does our political He's been in the thick of it

on the campaign trail this week. Oh, look, it's Boris Johnson

visiting Newport market. Well, either that or he just

fancied a cheese sandwich. But there hasn't always

been a welcome They were wiped off the Welsh

electoral map back in 1997. The polls look very promising

for the party this time around but will they translate

into extra seats? The Conservative Party

especially during the Thatcher years was accused of taking

Wales for granted, for imposing Welsh Secretaries

from English constituencies. And we know what happened

in Clwyd South. The Conservative Party wants

to govern for all the people Yes, Theresa May has a very exciting

and different agenda from many Conservative

governments in the past. She wants to reach out

to all communities. You heard what she said

in her speech today. She genuinely wants to reach out

to all sorts of families who have never previously thought

of themselves as Conservatives and I think that's

a fantastic thing to do. If things had gone a little

differently for Boris Johnson, he could have been a Welsh MP

as he stood for the party in Clwyd South in 1997,

but as the Foreign Secretary has repeatedly said,

he fought Clwyd South in what was a landslide victory

for the Labour Party. the shoe is very much

on the other foot these days. Labour-supporting

seagulls, I'm sure. One is a comedian,

the other's Eddie Izzard. What kind of Prime Minister do

you think Jeremy Corbyn would make? What kind of Prime Minister

would Theresa May make? She's obviously for

the few, not the many. I've always said

I'm a radical moderate. I prefer a Labour Party

with Jeremy Corbyn rather than a Tory Party

with Theresa May. And yet there was no mention

of the C word at Welsh Labour's election launch

earlier in the week. I know, but you are still voting

for the Labour Party in Wales. What's the funniest thing that's

happened on the campaign so far? Nothing funny happens to me

because I'm a comedian. I haven't met her but

I'll make sure I will. Well, at least the Lib Dem leader

gave us some light relief. Tim Farron dusted himself off

to give us his party's best Reservoir Dogs impression

on a visit to Cardiff. Last week the party

lost council seats. Not just in the capital

but across Wales. We took the poll in Cardiff Central

and in other parts of Wales and we had great support in many

areas across the country. What I think last Thursday told us

is what we should probably It's obvious to me that Theresa May

call this election knowing the Conservative Party,

not in the interests of the country. And we are going to

head for a landslide. Tim Farron there, unconventionally

calling on voters to make him And given that they have just

nine seats in the Commons, including one in Wales,

even that sounds like a long shot. It's been very lonely,

I don't mind saying that, but yes,

the only one from Wales. I work with other parties

in the House of Commons but I would greatly like to see

more company from Wales They are not in the market

for a new house but these Plaid Cymru candidates

are out for your votes in an election that they think

is primarily about Yes, it is a Brexit election,

no doubt about that. And what we are saying is,

the kind of money coming to Wales through the European Union

in structural funds and money for our

agriculture community, that has to come back

to Wales So this is a very important

debate for us in Wales. Who is going to be arguing

in the next Westminster parliament that that money should be

transferred to Wales? It shouldn't be given

as tax cuts to the rich, it should be given to promote

the Welsh economy and we believe, in that context,

Plaid Cymru is the only party Ironically, Ukip may suffer if this

is seen as a Brexit election. Do the voters want the party

that was created to campaign for Brexit to play

a part in the process? We will know about their

and the other parties' and candidates' fortunes

in just over three weeks' time. Joining me now to talk

about where this week's toings and froings leave the parties

are Jess Blair, the Director of the Electoral Reform Society,

and Rebecca Williams, who's in charge of the Country

Landowners Association Private Secretary to

the Secretary of State for Wales. Looking at what we have seen last

week, highlight or lowlight, that interfere with Theresa May, we

didn't learn very much but I guess that wasn't the point. The point of

the interview was about humanising the Prime Minister that for some

will have seen as quite removed from normal human life. Bringing her

husband and giving some kind of sense of normal family life is

exactly what she needs to do in Wales. But as somebody who campaigns

on the democracy, political side of it, do you think that the tone of

the debate or is it better that more people are engaged? Ultimately, it

is all about engagement but there is an irony in seeing more people can

see what she's like when the Prime Minister and the leader of the

Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, refused to do TV debates, so there is an ink

-- element of engagement but only on their terms. When we see the two

campaigns, the Conservatives versus the Labour campaign, they couldn't

be more different. One very tightly controlled, in charge of what is

happening, and then Jeremy Corbyn's campaign seems to be a lot more

meeting anyone but let's control of what's going on. Maybe that's the

image that they want to get across, that Italy Theresa May. That

controlled approach suggests how she may run the Brexit negotiations if

she is successful in this election. I think she's being very measured in

her approach and even when she does bring her husband along, it's very

much on her terms. I think that control is very important to her.

What about, from the Labour side of things, we saw last week the leaping

of the manifesto. It doesn't look like everything is going very

smoothly and steadily there. But is that part of the charm for Jeremy

Corbyn? This is how Jeremy Corbyn has worked for many years, since he

has become leader. It has been one battle after another and this has

probably been another battle for him. People still voted for him in

his leadership election. Do you think anybody cares about the fact

that the manifesto was leaked? Who would have leaked that? Who benefits

from that? All they will have is wall-to-wall coverage all day of the

content of the manifesto. Do people care if it was leaked? I think Welsh

Labour care very much because we saw from their reaction, Wednesday

morning, that they were not happy at all. Because they could have

prepared for it? Yes, because it goes against the clear red water

that is happening in this election. It could undermine Carwyn Jones'

position. He has created an ocean between Welsh Labour and Labour in

Westminster at least in terms of perception. When you look at the

message from that manifesto, which may or may not change, some of those

policies will strike a chord with the voters. We nationalising

railways, that is a big one. Higher taxes for top earners. Might there

be a problem that it is not the message, it is the messenger. Or

will people look through that? The fact we are talking about it, Labour

achieved what they wanted to do. The leak is irrelevant now. We are

talking about what Labour want is to be talking about and what they have

in their manifesto. We are not talking about the potential

Conservative manifesto because it is not out there. So the league has

played into their hands and raise the profile of some really

interesting ideas. How realistic they are, because we haven't seen

the full manifesto, we can't delve into that detail yet. I am going to

prove you wrong and talk about what might be in the Conservative

manifesto. Are we likely to see a long list of detailed plans of what

they want to see us Chamakh or will it be a very light manifesto and not

promise too much? I think it is more likely to be on the lighter side can

the heavy side. The more you promise, the harder it is to deliver

against all of those. I suspect there will be a lot of high-level

principles in there and maybe some key objectives but the majority of

those will be Brexit focused, I imagine. And that Labour manifesto

that we saw, you were saying about Welsh Labour, a Welsh campaign,

different priorities, do you think that difference, that clear red

water, will help them in Wales? Or will voters in Wales, like

elsewhere, like those promises of renationalising the railways and

electricity companies and so on? I think Arwyn Jones being presented as

the Welsh Labour leader is the best chance Labour have in Wales. At the

local elections they managed to mitigate a lot of losses -- Carwyn

Jones. It is the best shot they have got. We heard from Neil Hamilton,

saying about the squeeze for Ukip, is there a danger for Plaid Cymru,

for the Liberal Democrats, that they could be squeezed out of these

elections? That is the most telling thing in the campaign so far, how

much we are focusing on Labour and the Conservatives at the expense of

the other parties. And the independence as well. They are

really been squeezed out of the media and of conversation and that

is a concern in terms of the long-term trend of politics. Plaid

Cymru, for example, what can they do to reverse that? Leanne Wood, we saw

that, will she stand, will she stand in the Rhondda? Is that the kind of

attention they want? I don't think so. The biggest opportunity Plaid

Cymru have got is the leaders debates and getting Leanne Wood as

the leader of Plaid Cymru in the public but that has got to be

balanced with targeting key seats. There is lots of talk about

potentially the Rhondda and Anglesey, those are the of seeds

they want to be targeting and that national message has to permeate

into those constituencies. How much change will those leader debates

give us? We are not printed at the big-ticket, Jeremy Corbyn against

Theresa May, but could that change the fortunes of the Lib Dems and

Plaid Cymru? Certainly, we saw at the last election that the Lib Dems

did very well with Nick Clegg's approach to those debates and Leanne

Wood did very well. We talk a lot more about Scottish politics because

of the leadership debate and the profile that has, so definitely it

has an impact. People now expect to see and hear from their politicians.

They are more media savvy. We want to see our politicians on the

television and I think it will be interesting to see what impact that

will have in terms of turnout. And in terms of general engagement. When

we are looking at turnout, is it going to be a higher turnout because

people think it is important, Brexit is going on, or lower because people

are assuming Theresa May might get a landslide? We know that when the

elections are perceived as having a foregone conclusion, fewer people

turn out to vote, but the question is, on the back of the EU

referendum, when we saw a lot of people engage in last year, is there

any benefit from that? That is to be determined on June the 8th. I agree.

I am worried that some of the other parties, particularly Plaid Cymru

and the Liberal Democrats would get their voices across. People with it

is a two horse race and that is not good for anybody. We need to hear

different voices. The fact that Ukip are not standing in a few seats this

year, what does that say about what they think their chances are? I

think that is a step backwards. You can follow all the

latest election news on @walespolitics on Twitter.

Tories are saying. It is a very emotive subject and we have run out

of time. On Thursday nominations closed

in the 650 parliamentary seats across the country,

so now we know exactly who's We've been analysing the parties'

candidates to find out what they might tell us

about the make-up of the House Well, we know Theresa May is

committed to delivering Brexit and analysis of Conservative

candidates has shown that in their top 100 target seats,

37 candidates supported leave during last year's referendum

campaign and 20 supported remain; 43

have not made public In the last parliament,

the vast majority of Labour MPs were hostile to Jeremy Corbyn so how

supportive are Labour Well, of 50 of Labour's

top 100 target seats 17 candidates have expressed

support for Mr Corbyn. 20 candidates supported Owen Smith

in last year's leadership contest or have expressed

anti-Corbyn sentiment, and If they won those,

the Labour benches would be marginally more sympathetic

to Mr Corbyn than they are now. What do the figures tell us

about where the other Well, the Lib Dems have decided not

to stand against the Greens in Brighton Pavilion,

and are fielding 629 candidates this year -

that's two fewer than 2015. The number of Ukip candidates has

fallen dramatically. They are standing in 247 fewer

constituencies than 2015, throwing their support behind

solidly pro-Brexit Tories in some areas such as Lewes

and Norfolk North. The Greens are fielding

103 fewer candidates than at the last election,

standing down to help other progressive candidates

in some places. The most liking statistic is the

demise in Ukip candidates, is this their swansong? And I think so. It

is remarkable how few Ukip candidates are standing. It is hard

to see they will suddenly revive in the next couple of years. I think

this is probably the end. Frank Luntz mentioned the fragmentation of

the left was a feature of this election, but also there is the

consolidation of the right, and if you take the things together that

could explain why the polls are where they are. Absolutely, that's

precisely what happened at the start of the 1980s, the right was

incredibly united and that's when we started talking about majorities of

over 100 or so. No matter what the size of Theresa May's majority, it

will be the total collapse of Ukip, but not just because we are now

leaving the EU and that was their only reason for being, but a whole

lot of people voted for Ukip because they felt the Tories were no longer

listening. Theresa May has given the impression that she is listening,

and that is the biggest possible thing that could happen to the Tory

vote. Fragmentation of the left, consolidation of the right? It's one

of the lessons that is never learnt, it happened in the 1980s, it doesn't

take much for the whole thing to fracture so now you have on the

centre-left the SNP, the Labour Party, the Greens, the Liberal

Democrats all competing for the same votes and when you have, fleetingly

perhaps, large numbers coalescing on the right in one party, there is

only going to be one outcome. It happens regularly. It doesn't mean

the Tories haven't got their own fragility. Two years ago, David

Cameron and George Osborne the dominant figures, neither are in

Parliament now which is a symptom of the fragility this election is

disguising. Mrs May's position in a way reminds me of Mrs Thatcher in

the 1980s, I won't be outflanked on the right, Nicolas Sarkozy in

France, I won't be outflanked on the right, so the National Front didn't

get through either timed he ran to the second round on like this time,

and now Mrs May on Brexit won't be outflanked Iver and as a result has

seen off right flank. And also she is looking to the left as well with

some of the state interventions. What was interesting about the

analysis you showed a few minutes ago was the number of Tory

candidates who have apparently not declared which way they voted in the

referendum, and you would have thought if this election was all

about Brexit, as some would claim, that would become an unsustainable

position, and actually more it's about leadership. But the point that

I'm now hearing from a number of Labour candidates that they are

seeing Tory leaflets that don't even have the Tory candidate's name on

them, it is just about Theresa May. I am glad they are keeping to the

law because by law they have to put it on. It has been harder for some

of the smaller parties too because of the speed of the election being

called. We have the manifesto is coming out this week. I think Labour

Forshaw on Tuesday, we are not yet sure when the Tories will bring

bears out. I suggest one thing, it will at least for people like me

bring an end to the question you will have to wait for the manifesto.

And Rebecca Long baby will never have that excuse again, isn't it

wonderful! She is not the only one. When you are trying to take the

north and Midlands from Labour, I would go to one or the other. For

me, I can barely hold back my excitement over the Tory manifesto.

This will be, I think, the most important day for the British

government for the next five years. That wasn't irony there? You

actually meant that? I'm not even being cynical at all on Sunday

Politics! This is a huge day and it's because I think we will see...

I don't think Mrs May will play it safe and I don't think we will get

the broadbrush stuff that she might be advised to do. I think she will

lay out precisely what you want to do over the next five years and take

some big risks. Then finally after a year of this guessing and

theorising, we will finally work out what Mrs May is all about. She will

say she doesn't want the next parliament to be all about Brexit,

though she knows that's the next important thing she has to deliver

in some way, so she gets a mandate for that if the polls are right but

she does have very different ideas from

Mr Cameron about how to run a country. She will I assume one to

mandate for what these different ideas are. Otherwise there is no

point in holding an early election. You will get a majority, but if you

get a mandate to carry on implementing the Cameron and Osborne

manifesto it would be utterly pointless. I agree, it is the

pivotal event of the election and it will be interesting to see the

degree to which she expands on the line which interests me about its

time to look at the good that government can do. Because in a way

this moves the debate on in UK politics from, from 97 the Blair

Brown governments were insecure about arguing about the role of

government. Cameron Osborne government similarly so, so here you

have a Labour Party talking about the role of government and the

state, and Tory leader apparently doing so was well. I think that will

be really interesting to see whether it is fleshed out in any significant

way. And it is not a natural Tory message. Harold Macmillan talked

about the role of the state, Ted Heath Mark two was pretty big on the

state, the industrial policy and so on, and even if it is not thought to

be that Tory, does she get away with it because she deliver such a big

victory if that's what she does deliver? Just inject a little note

of scepticism, I wonder how much of this is authentically Theresa May. I

was interested to and talk to someone who used to sit in cabinet

meetings during which Theresa May never expressed an opinion on

anything outside the Home Office briefs. Other ministers were roving

all over their colleagues' briefs. So where are the ideas coming from?

I think we can point to Nick Timothy. One of her closest advisers

in Downing Street. It will be interesting to see how that evolves.

On Thursday I think we will all be talking about something called

Urdington Toryism. Urdington is the suburb of Birmingham where Nick

Timothy comes from, who is very much Theresa May's policy brain and

leading inspiration. Urdington Toryism is about connecting the

party with traditional working class voters, and their belief to do that

is not just taking away government out of their lives but showing them

that government can actually help their lives. It can be a force for

good to rebuild the trust. A lot of what Mrs May talks about is all...

It is talk and then a lot of it suddenly goes by the wayside. What

happened to worker directors on the boards. It is designed to appeal to

that constituency and then nothing happens. She had an excuse before in

the sense that it wasn't in the 2015 manifesto and she had a small

majority so therefore she arguably had to water down some of the stuff

for example in her Tory conference speech, which had a lot of this

active government material in it. If she puts it in the manifesto, it is

a sign she plans to do it and will have no excuse if she then gets

nervous afterwards because it will be in there. If it wasn't for

Brexit, this great overwhelming issue, I think this election will be

seen as quite a significant development in terms of an argument

around the role of government, much-needed. But Brexit

unfortunately overshadows it all. As much as we like our arguments over

the role of government we will hear strong and stable, stable and strong

ad nauseam, aren't we? Absolutely, and we heard the same old lines from

the Labour Party as well so they are all at it. It will be a fascinating

week, stop talking it down! Thanks to our panel.

The Daily Politics will be back on BBC Two at noon

I'll be back here at the same time on BBC One next Sunday.

Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.