21/05/2017 Sunday Politics Wales

It's Sunday Morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.

Labour attacks Conservative plans for social care and to means-test

So can Jeremy Corbyn eat into the Tory lead

Theresa May says her party's manifesto is all about fairness.

We'll be speaking to a Conservative cabinet minister about the plans.

The polls have always shown healthy leads for the Conservatives.

But, now we've seen the manifestos, is Labour narrowing the gap?

In the week where the political world

was shocked by the sudden death of Rhodri Morgan,

we'll be speaking to two of his closest friends about his legacy.

And with me - as always - the best and the brightest political

panel in the business: Sam Coates, Isabel Oakeshott

and Steve Richards - they'll be tweeting throughout

the programme, and you can get involved by using

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says pensioners will be up to ?330 a year

worse off under plans outlined in the Conservative manifesto.

The Work Pensions Secretary Damian Green has said his party will not

rethink their plans to fund social care in England. Under the plans in

the Conservative manifesto, nobody with assets of less than ?100,000,

would have to pay for care. Labour has attacked the proposal, and John

McDonnell, Labour's Shadow Chancellor, said this morning that

there needs to be more cross-party consensus.

That's why we supported Dilnot, but we also supported

Because we've got to have something sustainable over generations,

so that's why we've said to the Conservative Party,

Let's go back to that cross-party approach that actually

I just feel we've all been let down by what's come

Sam, is Labour beginning to get their argument across? What we had

last week was bluntly what felt like not very Lynton Crosby approved

Conservative manifesto. What I mean by that is that it looks like there

are things that will cause political difficulties for the party over this

campaign. I've been talking to MPs and ministers who acknowledge that

the social care plan is coming up on the doorstep. It has cut through

very quickly, and it is worrying and deterring some voters. Not just

pensioners, that people who are looking to inherit in the future.

They are all asking how much they could lose that they wouldn't have

lost before. A difficult question for the party to answer, given that

they don't want to give too much away now. Was this a mistake, or a

sign of the Conservatives' confidence? It has the hallmarks of

something that has been cobbled together in a very unnaturally short

time frame for putting a manifesto together. We have had mixed messages

from the Tory MPs who have been out on the airwaves this morning as to

whether they will consult on it whether it is just a starting point.

That said, there is still three weeks to go, and most of the Tory

party this morning feel this is a little light turbulence rather than

anything that leaves the destination of victory in doubt. It it flips the

normal politics. The Tories are going to make people who have a

reasonable amount of assets pay for their social care. What is wrong

with that? First, total credit for them for not pretending that all

this can be done by magic, which is what normally happens in an

election. The party will say, we will review this for the 95th time

in the following Parliament, so they have no mandate to do anything and

so do not do anything. It is courageous to do it. It is

electorally risky, for the reasons that you suggest, that they pass the

target their own natural supporter. And there is a sense that this is

rushed through, in the frenzy to get it done in time. I think the ending

of the pooling of risk and putting the entire burden on in inverted

commas the victim, because you cannot insure Fritz, is against the

spirit of a lot of the rest of the manifesto, and will give them huge

problems if they try to implement it in the next Parliament. Let's have a

look at the polls. Nearly five weeks ago, on Tuesday the 18th of April,

Theresa May called the election. At that point, this was the median

average of the recent polls. The Conservatives had an 18 point lead

over Labour on 25%. Ukip and the Liberal Democrats were both on 18%.

A draft of Labour's manifesto was leaked to the press. In the

intervening weeks, support for the Conservatives and Labour had

increased, that it had decreased for the Lib Dems and Ukip. Last Tuesday

came the launch of the official Labour manifesto. By that time,

Labour support had gone up by another 2%. The Lib Dems and Ukip

had slipped back slightly. Later in the week came the manifestos from

the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. This morning, for more polls. This

is how the parties currently stand on average. Labour are now on 34%,

up 4% since the launch of their manifesto. The Conservatives are

down two points since last Tuesday. Ukip and the Lib Dems are both

unchanged on 8% and 5%. You can find this poll tracker on the BBC

website, see how it was calculated, and see the results of national

polls over the last two years. So Isabel, is this the Tories' wobbly

weekend or the start of the narrowing? This is still an

extremely healthy lead for the Tories. At the start of this

campaign, most commentators expected to things to happen. First, the Lib

Dems would have a significant surge. That hasn't happened. Second, Labour

would crash and plummet. Instead they are in the health of the low

30s. I wonder if that tells you something about the tribal nature of

the Labour vote, and the continuing problems with the Tory brand. I

would say that a lot of Tory MPs wouldn't be too unhappy if Labour's

result isn't quite as bad as has been anticipated. They don't want

Corbyn to go anywhere. If the latest polls were to be the result on June

the 8th, Mr Corbyn may not be in a rush to go anywhere. I still think

it depends on the number of seats. If there is a landslide win, I

think, one way or another, he will not stay. If it is much narrower, he

has grounds for arguing he has done better than anticipated. The polls

are very interesting. People compare this with 83. In 83, the Tory lead

widened consistently throughout the campaign. There was the SDP -

Liberal Alliance doing well in the polls. Here, the Lib Dems don't seem

to be doing that. So the parallels with 83 don't really stack up. But

let's see what happens. Still early days for the a lot of people are

saying this is the result of the social care policy. We don't really

know that. How do you beat them? In the last week or so, there's been

the decision by some to hold their nose and vote Labour, who haven't

done so before. Probably the biggest thing in this election is how the

Right has reunited behind Theresa May. That figure for Ukip is

incredibly small. She has brought those Ukip voters behind her, and

that could be the decisive factor in many seats, rather than the Labour

share of the boat picking up a bit or down a bit, depending on how

turbulent the Tory manifesto makes it. Thank you for that.

We've finally got our hands on the manifestos of the two main

parties and, for once, voters can hardly complain that

So, just how big is the choice on offer to the public?

Since the Liberal Democrats and SNP have ruled out

coalitions after June 8th, Adam Fleming compares the Labour

Welcome to the BBC's election centre.

Four minutes from now, when Big Ben strikes 10.00,

we can legally reveal the contents of this, our exit poll.

18 days to go, and the BBC's election night studio

This is where David Dimbleby will sit, although there is no chair yet.

The parties' policies are now the finished product.

In Bradford, Jeremy Corbyn vowed a bigger state,

the end of austerity, no more tuition fees.

The Tory campaign, by contrast, is built on one word - fear.

Down the road in Halifax, Theresa May kept a promise to get

immigration down to the tens of thousands, and talked

of leadership and tough choices in uncertain times.

Strengthen my hand as I fight for Britain, and stand with me

And, with confidence in ourselves and a unity

of purpose in our country, let us go forward together.

Let's look at the Labour and Conservative

On tax, Labour would introduce a 50p rate for top earners.

The Conservatives ditched their triple lock, giving them

freedom to put up income tax and national insurance,

although they want to keep the overall tax burden the same.

Labour offered a major overhaul of the country's wiring,

with a pledge to renationalise infrastructure, like power,

The Conservatives said that would cost a fortune,

but provided few details for the cost of their policies.

Labour have simply become a shambles, and, as yesterday's

manifesto showed, their numbers simply do not add up.

What have they got planned for health and social care?

The Conservatives offered more cash for the NHS,

reaching an extra ?8 billion a year by the end of the parliament.

Labour promised an extra ?30 billion over the course of the same period,

plus free hospital parking and more pay for staff.

The Conservatives would increase the value of assets you could

protect from the cost of social care to ?100,000, but your home would be

added to the assessment of your wealth,

There was a focus on one group of voters in particular

Labour would keep the triple lock, which guarantees that pensions go up

The Tories would keep the increase in line

with inflation or earnings, a double lock.

The Conservatives would end of winter fuel payments

for the richest, although we don't know exactly who that would be,

This is a savage attack on vulnerable pensioners,

particularly those who are just about managing.

It is disgraceful, and we are calling upon the Conservative Party

When it comes to leaving the European Union, Labour say

they'd sweep away the government's negotiating strategy,

secure a better deal and straightaway guaranteed the rights

The Tories say a big majority would remove political uncertainty

Jeremy Vine's due here in two and a half weeks.

I'm joined now by David Gauke, who is Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Welcome back to the programme. The Tories once promised a cap on social

care costs. Why have you abandoned that? We've looked at it, and there

are couple of proposals with the Dilnot proposal. Much of the benefit

would go to those inheriting larger estates. The second point was it was

hoped that a cap would stimulate the larger insurance products that would

fill the gap, but there is no sign that those products are emerging.

Without a cap, you will not get one. We have come forward with a new

proposal which we think is fairer, provide more money for social care,

which is very important and is one of the big issues we face as a

country. It is right that we face those big issues. Social care is

one, getting a good Brexit deal is another. This demonstrates that

Theresa May has an ambition to lead a government that addresses those

big long-term issues. Looking at social care. If you have assets,

including your home, of over ?100,000, you have to pay for all

your social care costs. Is that fair? It is right that for the

services that are provided to you, that that is paid out of your

assets, subject to two really important qualifications. First, you

shouldn't have your entire estate wiped out. At the moment, if you are

in residential care, it can be wiped out ?223,000. If you are in

domiciliary care, it can be out to ?23,000, plus you're domiciliary.

Nobody should be forced to sell their house in their lifetime if

they or their spouse needs long-term care. Again, we have protected that

in the proposals we set out. But the state will basically take a

chunk of your house when you die and they sell. In an essence it is a

stealth inheritance tax on everything above ?100,000. But we

have those two important protections. I am including that. It

is a stealth inheritance tax. We have to face up to the fact that

there are significant costs that we face as a country in terms of health

and social careful. Traditionally, politicians don't address those

issues, particularly during election campaigns. I think it is too Theresa

May's credit that we are being straightforward with the British

people and saying that we face this long-term challenge. Our manifesto

was about the big challenges that we face, one of which was

intergenerational fairness and one of which was delivering a strong

economy and making sure that we can do that. But in the end, someone is

going to have to pay for this. It is going to have to be a balance

between the general taxpayer and those receiving the services. We

think we have struck the right balance with this proposal. But it

is entirely on the individual. People watching this programme, if

they have a fair amount of assets, not massive, including the home,

they will need to pay for everything themselves until their assets are

reduced to ?100,000. It is not a balance, you're putting everything

on the original two individual. At the moment, for those in residential

care, they have to pay everything until 20 3000. -- everything on the

individual. But now they will face more. Those in individual care are

seeing their protection going up by four times as much, so that is

eliminating unfairness. Why should those in residential care be in a

worse position than those receiving domiciliary care? But as I say, that

money has to come from somewhere and we are sitting at a proper plan for

it. While also made the point that we are more likely to be able to

have a properly functioning social care market if we have a strong

economy, and to have a strong economy we need to deliver a good

deal on Brexit and I think Theresa May is capable of doing that. You

have said that before. But if you have a heart attack in old age, the

NHS will take care of you. If you have dementia, you now have to pay

for the care of yourself. Is that they are? It is already the case

that if you have long-term care costs come up as I say, if you are

in residential care you pay for all of it until the last ?23,000, but if

you are in domiciliary care, excluding your housing assets, but

all of your other assets get used up until you are down to ?23,000 a

year. And I think it is right at this point that a party that aspires

to run this country for the long-term, to address the long-term

challenges we have is a country, for us to be clear that we need to

deliver this. Because if it is not paid for it this way, if it goes and

falls on the general taxpayer, the people who feel hard pressed by the

amount of income tax and VAT they pay, frankly we have to say to them,

those taxes will go up if we do not address it. But they might go up

anyway. The average house price in your part of the country is just shy

of ?430,000, so if you told your own constituents that they might have to

spend ?300,000 of their assets on social care before the state steps

in to help...? As I said earlier, nobody will be forced to pay during

their lifetime. Nobody will be forced to sell their houses. We are

providing that protection because of the third premium. Which makes it a

kind of death tax, doesn't it? Which is what you use to rail against.

What it is people paying for the services they have paid out of their

assets. But with that very important protection that nobody is going to

be wiped out in the way that has happened up until now, down to the

last three years. But when Labour propose this, George Osborne called

it a death tax and you are now proposing a stealth death tax

inheritance tax. Labour's proposals were very different. It is the same

effect. Labour's were hitting everyone with an inheritance tax. We

are saying that there are -- that there is a state contribution but

the public receiving the services will have to pay for it out of

assets, which have grown substantially. And which they might

now lose to social care. But I would say that people in Hertfordshire pay

a lot in income tracks, national insurance and VAT, and this is my

bet is going to have to come from somewhere. Well, they are now going

to pay a lot of tax and pay for social care. Turning to immigration,

you promised to get net migration down to 100,020 ten. You failed. You

promised again in 2015 and you are feeling again. Why should voters

trust you a third time? It is very clear that only the Conservative

Party has an ambition to control immigration and to bring it down. An

ambition you have failed to deliver. There are, of course, factors that

come into play. For example a couple of years ago we were going through a

period when the UK was creating huge numbers of jobs but none of our

European neighbours were doing anything like it. Not surprisingly,

that feeds through into the immigration numbers that we see. But

it is right that we have that ambition because I do not believe it

is sustainable to have hundreds of thousands net migration, you're

after year after year, and only Theresa May of the Conservative

Party is willing to address that. It has gone from being a target to an

ambition, and I am pretty sure in a couple of years it will become an

untimed aspiration. Is net migration now higher or lower than when you

came to power in 2010? I think it is higher at the moment. Let's look at

the figures. And there they are. You are right, it is higher, so after

six years in power, promising to get it down to 100,000, it is higher. So

if that is an ambition and you have not succeeded. We have to accept

that there are a number of factors. It continues to be the case that the

UK economy is growing and creating a lot of jobs, which is undoubtedly

drawing people. But you made the promise on the basis that would not

happen? We are certainly outperforming other countries in a

way that we could not have predicted in 2010. That is one of the factors.

But if you look at a lot of the steps that we have taken over the

course of the last seven years, dealing with bogus students, for

example, tightening up a lot of the rules. You can say all that but it

has made no difference to the headline figure. Clearly it would

have gone up by much more and we not taken the steps. But as I say, we

cannot for ever, it seems to me, have net migration numbers in the

hundreds of thousands. If we get that good Brexit deal, one of the

things we can do is tighten up in terms of access here. You say that

but you have always had control of non-EU migration. You cannot blame

the EU for that. You control immigration from outside the EU.

Have you ever managed to get even that below 100,000? Well, no doubt

you will present the numbers now. You haven't. You have got down a bit

from 2010, I will give you that, but even non-EU migration is still a lot

more than 100000 and that is the thing you control. It is 164,000 on

the latest figures. There is no point in saying to the voters that

when we get control of the EU migration you will get it down when

the bit you have control over, you have failed to get that down into

the tens of thousands. The general trend has gone up. Non-EU migration

we have brought down over the last few years. Not by much, not by

anywhere near your 100,000 target. But we clearly have more tools

available to us, following Brexit. At this rate it will be around 2030

before you get non-EU migration down to 100,000. We clearly have more

tools available to us and I return to the point I made. In the last six

or seven years, particularly the last four or five, we have seen the

UK jobs market growing substantially. It is extraordinary

how many more jobs we have. So you'll only promised the migration

target because you did not think you were going to run the economy well?

That is what you are telling me. I don't think anyone expected us to

create quite a number of jobs that we have done over the last six or

seven years. At the time when other European countries have not been.

George Osborne says your target is economically illiterate. I disagree

with George on that. He is my old boss but I disagree with him on that

point. And the reason I say that is looking at the economics and the

wider social impact, I don't think it is sustainable for us to have

hundreds of thousands, year after year after year. Let me ask you one

other thing because you are the chief secretary. Your promising that

spending on health will be ?8 billion higher in five use time than

it is now. How do you pay for that? From a strong economy, two years ago

we had a similar conversation because at that point we said that

we would increase spending by ?8 billion. And we are more than on

track to deliver it, because it is a priority area for us. Where will the

money come from? It will be a priority area for us. We will find

the money. So you have not been able to show us a revenue line where this

?8 billion will come from. We have a record of making promises to spend

more on the NHS and delivering. One thing I would say is that the only

way you can spend more money on the NHS is if you have a strong economy,

and the biggest risk... But that is true of anything. I am trying to

find out where the ?8 billion come from, where will it come from? Know

you were saying that perhaps you might increase taxes, ticking off

the lock, so people are right to be suspicious. But you will not tell us

where the ?8 billion will come from. Andrew, a strong economy is key to

delivering more NHS money. That does not tell us where the money is

coming from. The biggest risk to a strong economy would be a bad

Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn would deliver. And we have a record of

putting more money into the NHS. I think that past performance we can

take forward. Thank you for joining us.

So, the Conservatives have been taking a bit of flak

But Conservative big guns have been out and about this morning taking

Here's Boris Johnson on ITV's Peston programme earlier today:

What we're trying to do is to address what I think

everybody, all serious demographers acknowledge will be the massive

problem of the cost of social care long-term.

This is a responsible, grown-up, conservative approach,

trying to deal with a long-term problem in a way that is equitable,

allows people to pass on a very substantial sum,

still, to their kids, and takes away the fear

Joining me now from Liverpool is Labour's Shadow Chief Secretary

Petered out, welcome to the programme. Let's start with social

care. The Tories are saying that if you have ?100,000 or more in assets,

you should pay for your own social care. What is wrong with that? Well,

I think the issue at the end of the day is the question of fairness. Is

it fair? And what we're trying to do is to get to a situation where we

have, for example, the Dilnot report, which identified that you

actually have cap on your spending on social care. We are trying to get

to a position where it is a reasonable and fair approach to

expenditure. But you will know that a lot of people, particularly in the

south of country, London and the south-east, and the adjacent areas

around it, they have benefited from huge house price inflation. They

have seen their homes go up in value, if and when they sell, they

are not taxed on that increase. Why should these people not pay for

their own social care if they have the assets to do so? They will be

paying for some of their social care but you cannot take social care and

health care separately. It has to be an integrated approach. So for

example if you do have dementia, you're more likely to be in an

elderly person's home for longer and you most probably have been in care

for a longer period of time. On the other hand, you might have, if you

have had a stroke, there may be continuing care needs paid for by

the NHS. So at the end of the date it is trying to get a reasonable

balance and just to pluck a figure of ?100,000 out of thin air is not

sensible. You will have heard me say about David Gold that the house

prices in his area, about 450,000 or so, not quite that, and that people

may have to spend quite a lot of that on social care to get down to

?100,000. But in your area, the average house price is only

?149,000, so your people would not have to pay anything like as much

before they hit the ?100,000 minimum. I hesitate to say that but

is that not almost a socialist approach to social care that if you

are in the affluent Home Counties with a big asset, you pay more, and

if you are in an area that is not so affluent and your house is not worth

very much, you pay a lot less. What is wrong with that principle? I

think the problem I am trying to get to is this issue about equity across

the piece. At the end of the day, what we want is a system whereby it

is capped at a particular level, and the Dilnot report, after much

examination, said we should have a cap on care costs at ?72,000. The

Conservatives decided to ditch that and come up with another policy

which by all accounts seems to be even more Draconian. At the end of

the day it is trying to get social care and an NHS care in a much more

fluid way. We had offered the Conservatives to have a bipartisan

approach to this. David just said that this is a long term. You do not

pick a figure out of thin air and use that as a long-term strategy.

The Conservatives are now saying they will increase health spending

over the next five years in real terms. You will increase health

spending. In what way is your approach to health spending better

than the Tories' now? We are contributing an extra 7.2 billion to

the NHS and social care over the next few years. But you just don't

put money into the NHS or social care. It has to be an integrated

approach to social and health care. What we've got is just more of the

same. What we don't want to do is just say, we ring-fenced an out for

here or there. What you have to do is try to get that... Let me ask you

again. In terms of the amount of resource that is going to be devoted

in the next five years, and resource does matter for the NHS, in what way

are your plans different now from the Conservative plans? The key is

how you use that resource. By just putting money in, you've got to say,

if we are going to put that money on, how do we use it? As somebody

who has worked in social care for 40 years, you have to have a different

approach to how you use that money. The money we are putting in, 7.7,

may be similar in cash terms to what the Tories claim they are putting

in, but it's not how much you put in per se, it is how you use it. You

are going to get rid of car parking charges in hospital, and you are

going to increase pay by taking the cap on pay off. So it doesn't

necessarily follow that the money, under your way of doing it, will

follow the front line. What you need in the NHS is a system that is

capable of dealing with the patience you have. What we have now is on at

five Asian of the NHS. Staff leaving, not being paid properly. So

pay and the NHS go hand in hand. Let's move onto another area of

policy where there is some confusion. Who speaks for the Labour

Party on nuclear weapons? Is it Emily Thornbury, or Nia Griffith,

defence spokesperson? The Labour manifesto. It is clear. We are

committed to the nuclear deterrent, and that is the definitive... Is it?

Emily Thornbury said that Trident could be scrapped in the defence

review you would have immediately after taking power. On LBC on Friday

night. She didn't, actually. I listened to that. What she actually

said is, as part of a Labour government coming in, a new

government, there is always a defence review. But not the concept

of Trident in its substance. She said there would be a review in

terms of, and this is in our manifesto. When you reduce

something, you review how it is operated. The review could scrap

Trident. It won't scrap Trident. The review is in the context of how you

protect it from cyber attacks. This will issue was seized upon that she

was saying that we would have another review of Trident or Labour

would ditch it. That is nonsense. You will have seen some reports that

MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn in the early 90s because of his

links to Irish republicanism. This has caused some people, his links to

the IRA and Sinn Fein, it has caused some concern. Could you just listen

to this clip and react. Do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn

all bombing. But do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn what was done

with the British Army as well as both sides as well. What happened in

Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well. Do you distinguish between

state forces, what the British Army did and the IRA? Well, in a sense,

the treatment of IRA prisoners which made them into virtual political

prisoners suggested that the British government and the state saw some

kind of almost equivalent in it. My point is that the whole violence if

you was terrible, was appalling, and came out of a process that had been

allowed to fester in Northern Ireland for a very long time. That

was from about two years ago. Can you explain why the Leader of the

Labour Party, Her Majesty 's opposition, the man who would be our

next Prime Minister, finds it so hard to condemn IRA arming? I think

it has to be within the context that Jeremy Corbyn for many years trying

to move the peace protest... Process along. So why wouldn't you condemn

IRA bombing? Again, that was an issue, a traumatic event in Irish -

British relations that went on for 30 years. It is a complicated

matter. Bombing is not that complicated. If you are a man of

peace, surely you would condemn the bomb and the bullet? Let me say

this, I condemn the bomb and the bullet. Why can't your leader? You

would have to ask Jeremy Corbyn, but that is in the context of what he

was trying to do over a 25 year period to move the priest process

along. Thank you for joining us. Hello and welcome to

the Sunday Politics Wales. There were tributes

from across the political spectrum but we'll be speaking to two

of Rhodri Morgan's closest friends, Mark Drakeford,

who succeeded him as AM, and his former Special Adviser,

Jo Kiernan. But first, the general election

campaign continues and we're carrying on with

our series of interviews We've already heard

from Ukip and Plaid Cymru. Labour and the Conservatives

will follow in the next two weeks. But today it's the turn

of the Liberal Democrats. They'll be looking to increase

their numbers in Parliament and trying to win more

than the single seat they won Eluned Parrott from the Lib Dems

is here with me now. As I said, two years ago was a very

difficult night. How confident are you that it would be yet another

difficult evening for the Lib Dems? We are looking forward with real

positivity. We have doubled our membership across the UK but also in

Wales. We have reached historic highs there. And the political

rhetoric has changed a lot. We have had the Brexit referendum and people

are looking for positivity and hope. People are looking for something

different. Politics is very volatile at the moment and I think there is

an opportunity for a party like the Liberal Democrats to make gains by

putting forward a positive image of the future. Every party is putting a

positive case for the future but one of the things you are offering is

this second, or another referendum on the deal of Brexit. How will that

work? It is really important that people have a chance to scrutinise

properly the deal that is made. We were offered a referendum choice

which was to remain as the status quo or a black box that no one could

see inside. On this programme a year ago I was debating with someone from

the leave campaign who refused to say what that Brexit would actually

look like. They didn't want to tell people that we might leave the

single market because people understand that would be very

dangerous for our economy. They didn't want to talk about leaving

the common agricultural policy and what that might mean for farmers in

Wales. All that needs to be properly scrutinised. We believe that

decision on the deal should not be in the hands of the Prime Minister

and a couple of Tory ministers, it should be in the hands of the

electorate. But you would then have, here is the deal, another

referendum, except the deal all refuse it. If people refuse it, do

we just returned to how it was before the referendum? We think they

should be an option to refuse the deal and remain. But do we keep on

negotiating with the rest of the EU? Does that process continue? The

referendum last year was clear, that people want to leave the European

Union. You seem to be saying, if they don't like the deal, it is all

off. We are seeing people have too have the opportunity to vote on the

basis of what the deal looks like and if it is not in the best

interests of the UK and Wales, they should have an opportunity to reject

it and to say, remain. The idea that if Theresa May can't negotiate a

decent deal we just fall catastrophically out of the European

Union with no safety net at all, go to Wales -- World Trade Organisation

rules, that would be a disaster for Wales. We need to make sure that the

safety net is not to collapse, it is to remain. But we know that the rest

of the EU wants the UK to stay, so what's to stop them giving us a

terrible deal, they will never back that, they will remain. We want

people to have an honest opportunity to choose between positive

alternatives. I believe that means treating our European colleagues

with respect and dignity and to deal with them in a respectful and honest

way. The kind of rhetoric we have had from the Conservative Party

about Europe, about this combative language we have heard from Theresa

May has damaged our relations with the world. We need to be able to

negotiate openly and we need to keep our options open. But in the

manifesto you say you want to remain as a member of the single market,

you want to protect freedom of movement. Those two things together

would essentially negate the result of the referendum last year,

wouldn't it? No. But don't you accept that one of the main reasons

people voted to leave the EU was to try and get some more control over

borders and membership of the single market, keeping freedom of movement,

would bypass that? Not at all. Talking to people, they voted to

leave for a very complex variety of reasons so forth some of them, yes,

it was freedom of movement, but for others it was bureaucracy and

paperwork. Freedom of movement is something that is worth protecting.

We cannot use our EU national based in Britain as bargaining chips. They

are people with families, futures, and children who need stability in

their lives. Similarly, we could be using citizens in Europe as

bargaining chips. We need to fight for their rights. A quarter of our

doctors and nurses in our NHS, a quarter of our university professors

and very senior people in those professions are foreign nationals. A

sudden catastrophic fall out of the European Union, which means sending

people like that back to Europe or making them feel they are unwelcome

so they wish to go back to Europe, that would be devastating for

services in Wales. Tim Farron has been saying that he wants to be the

next opposition. We will set aside the lack of ambition about wanting

to be Prime Minister but he is a realist, I guess. But why wouldn't

he then entertain the possibility of forming a coalition and getting into

power that way? Isn't that a wasted vote to vote for the Lib Dems?

Absolutely not. Good position improved government. If you don't

have a good opposition, you have a government that can get away with

anything without any kind of challenge. The Labour Party has been

too busy fighting within itself. They allowed the Tories to pass a

budget that took away housing benefit from 18-21 -year-olds. There

wasn't a murmur of opposition. But in power you could prevent that.

Nick Clegg vetoed policies with which he didn't agree. You could do

that if you were in power. But the Conservatives under Theresa May and

the Labour Party and the Jeremy Corbyn have said they will go

forward with a hard Brexit. They will go forward with a plan which

isn't in our interests as far as the Liberal Democrats believe it. There

is no possibility of forming a coalition with parties who believe a

hard Brexit is in the best interest of this country. We have to have a

vocal opposition fighting for the rights of the people of Britain, our

farmers and agricultural payments, our businesses and making sure we

can still trade without tariffs and taxes with the rest of Europe. We

need to fight for those European citizens and British citizens

overseas to. Looking at other promises in the manifesto, an

increase of 1p in the pound in income tax. End the 1% public sector

pay gap. More investment for education. Borrowing ?1 billion for

investment. That is almost taken word for word out of the Labour

Party manifesto. No, it's not. We have produced a fully costed

manifesto. For example, we have agreed that we want to reverse the

welfare cuts of the last two years. That is not in the Labour manifesto.

We have fully costed it, we have been honest about where the money is

going to come from, and if you want to save the NHS, you may have to pay

more tax. A penny on income tax to make sure we can save the NHS and

deliver the services people need. Services like social care which

people are so anxious about. We have to be honest with people. Money

doesn't grow on trees. We are not building an orchard of money trees

anywhere, unlike the Labour Party, who have some serious gaps in their

costings. You have to be honest and upfront about it. A friend in

England will raise ?6 billion for the NHS and will make sure that

things like mental health will be treated with real equality there but

what it means for Wales is a ?3 million a year boost for the Welsh

Government to invest in the health service here. And yet when we look

at where the Liberal Democrats are in the opinion polls, it must be

disheartening. Use only, during the course of an election campaign, Lib

Dems go up and up. You are flat-lining in the polls. Is that a

concern? At the moment politics is so volatile, opinion polls are

swinging very wildly. Previous modelling is to try and waited for

Turner, I don't think we can rely on any of that this time. This is a new

age. We have some very strong peelings -- strong feelings that

people have about Brexit, about the taxes, and I am confident that we

are going out on the doorstep and talking to people about the positive

agenda for change and how we want to make sure that the future rhetoric

of British politics doesn't have to be the negative, nasty rhetoric we

have had in that last year. We have an opportunity to say this doesn't

have to be the future. Thank you for joining me this morning.

Now, the Welsh Green Party is fielding ten candidates

A short while ago I spoke to their leader, Grenville Ham,

and I began by asking him what his main pitch was

This year, we're looking at it, the two analyses.

You've got the Progressive Alliance, so part of it is, we're encouraging

people to vote tactically, to ensure that we don't have a very strong

But then from the green perspective, I was watching

the leaders debated just this week, nobody mentioned climate change.

I think what we're actually seeing is the

From our perspective, the climate change

issue is our biggest economic failure.

Even the Bank of England have said that, so we're pushing

Equally, we are very deeply concerned about the future for our

Our young people are increasingly saddled with debt.

Houses they can't afford and they haven't got career

so it's placing them at the centre of our policies.

there that people aren't mentioning, green issues, the environment now.

Isn't that the problem for the Green party,

which is maybe in a time of plenty, that people will say,

OK let's look at the environment, but

when there's such a squeeze on public spending, maybe people's

priorities will change and that's why the environment is being

Potentially, but the issue is still there, that the issues are going to

get worse so we look at it and go, this is a major industrial

I look at cities around the world, Beijing, Shanghai, Rio de

London, their breathing air that is poisonous.

So, whichever comes up with a saleable technology, you

A lot of tech firms in America investing

in that because they know they can sell that to the rest of the world

From the Welsh perspective, the tidal energy,

wind, hydro and all of the housing stock that we can retrofit, we can

actually create a lot of jobs and create a lot of income.

When you are looking at cities like Beijing,

Rio de Janeiro all around the world, isn't there a danger that

people look at that and say, it's such a problem.

Whatever Wales does, or even whatever the UK does, is

It's a problem that's not going to go away and it's a huge

I do genuinely believe that we can actually become the forefront

It's where the education for young people.

We've got a serious lack in engineering.

Let's have the policies that deliver that.

What would be your policy on improving engineering?

Look at the German model, energy change.

They've invested huge amounts of money in their

I would look to establishing engineering facilities in places

like Port Talbot, we've got the potential for using industry and

going, let's create RNZ tech institutes.

When you're talking about the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon,

is the difficulty there, if you've got a

balance, you welcome the fact that it might be going ahead

now and yet you know that there are

environmental concerns to deal with, how the fish species will be moving

out and how it will affect the reverse round there.

It's always going to be a tricky balance

and that's why we have to trust in the expertise of our statutory

Ultimately, they are the people that can advise and there will always be

certain schemes that the environmental impact is too

Therefore, if Natural Resources Wales, the guardians, the official

Welsh Government guardians make sure it doesn't have a negative

impact on the environment, if they say, actually,

we're not keen on this, you would say it shouldn't go ahead.

If the scientists turned round and say the impact is too

I will always accept the evidence -based approach

Even though it could offer such a massive and overwhelming boost?

I believe there will be away any impact can be mitigated.

You mention the Progressive Alliance.

Tell me how you think that should work.

Ultimately, some of the parties have said it's too late.

We've been talking about it for over a year

We are acutely aware that politics is changing rapidly.

As a party we want to work with other parties.

What we want delivered is proportional representation.

It's unfair that those people aren't being represented, we want to get

To deliver that, we have to work with other parties and at the moment

the Lib Dems and Labour aren't there yet that I think it

How do the Progressive Alliance work if nobody else is interested?

There's a number of ways it can happen.

What we have called for is when candidate from a number

We have had a number of instances with other parties have withdrawn.

But the other mechanism is on the street, there's a lot

They going, I'm going to do my own version

We're going to find this is the most practical election.

We're going to find this is the most tactical election.

Is the problem for Green Party, going from being a single issue

party, just concentrating on the environment, to be

the alternative left party and more left-wing policies.

But then Jeremy Corbyn has come along and shot your fox for you.

See what I mean, he's pitched to the left-wing policies

I think it's heading is on the right direction.

The difference between us, is we are bottom up

So I think, and also the Greens are all over the world.

But I'd welcome working with like-minded

If they're not interested, and Labour aren't interested

in a Progressive Alliance, they are taking the voters that

might otherwise have considered voting Green.

But equally, a lot of the people are still going,

So it's a crowded political landscape in Wales.

We are aware of that and politics is going to change.

In the past, the Greens have worked with Plaid Cymru.

Would you consider that kind of joint ticket?

I go OK, Plaid Cymru and I have differences on certain key issues.

Am I going to beat them over the head or am I going to work

with them over the issues that we share?

I think by working together, you can create more change.

Do you think, in all of the parties there is some talk of green schemes,

Or do you see it as people turning away from the Greens?

Is it some comfort that people are discussing it?

Would that have been there without us?

I don't know. It's a step in the right direction.

It's not necessarily a big step and not necessarily

in the right direction but they are getting there.

Why do you think the Greens haven't taken off?

In Wales in the way that they have elsewhere.

For example, in Scotland, you have a number of green MPs there.

In Wales it doesn't seem to have been...

And the Green party has more of its roots in West Wales than it

does in other parts but it's never taken off.

One of the key issues we're going to work face

We don't accept donations from corporations.

So we are reliant on funding from our members and because Wales

is the poorer of all of the UK, we haven't got the money to compete

We won a seat in Powys and got six second places.

That is definite progress being made.

What would be a good night for you on June the 8th?

Retaining our deposits, ultimately, the Tory majority being reduced.

But on a human level, I've got friends, my best friend's

She's from Spain and she was crying, and said, I don't know

So a good night for me is knowing that my friends like that actually

Now, all this week on BBC One Wales there will be a special series

of programmes where the main political leaders

It begins tomorrow evening when Andrew Neil will interview

That will be followed by a live programme from Rhos near Wrexham,

where Bethan Rhys Roberts and voters will question the leader

of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew RT Davies.

That's Ask the Leader all this week at 7pm,

Few politicians are known merely by their first name,

politicians are known for their first name.

The former First Minister died suddenly this week,

leading to tributes from political friend and foe alike.

In a moment, I'll be speaking to two people who knew him better

than almost anyone - the man who succeeded him as AM

for Cardiff West, Mark Drakeford, and his former Special Adviser,

But first Gareth Evans looks at the mark Rhodri Morgan left

I declare Rhodri Morgan is duly elected as first secretary and

invite him to address the Assembly. I do have to record the fact of how

privileged I do feel that it has come to me as a labour first

secretary in the very month when the Labour Party is celebrating its own

centenary as a political party. Most politicians leave a legacy of

the end of their time in prayer power. Rhodri Morgan's legacy

started on day one. But coming First Minister after a shaky start of the

new institution, his supporters say he was central to making the idea of

the Assembly acceptable to a population which should only

narrowly voted for it. Rhodri Morgan along with some other leading

politicians at the time, we'll really committed to making sure that

the future of devolution was stable and was on the right footing and of

course, Rhodri including people like Dafydd Elis-Thomas did reshape the

devolution settlement is to make it more operationally sound. With

Labour in power, Westminster... Rhodri Morgan embraced the spirit of

devolution but in clear water between Labour and Cardiff Bay. He

opted out of reforms and introduced free prescriptions and free bus

passes to Wales. Political revival is remembered how he helps the idea

of devolution to flourish behind-the-scenes. He knew what was

right in terms of the Constitution. How you should have in any country

in a separate government, separate from the National Assembly and the

Parliamentary body and how both those bodies should be independent

of each other so that they could scrutinise and he wanted to be

scrutinised as First Minister by an independent Assembly and that's what

he helped me to develop alongside his work of developing Welsh

Government. He managed to change the legislation of devolution way beyond

what we had to begin with and that would be his contribution because he

was such a deep Democrat, write to the fibre of his being. With Labour

by far the largest bit party in December but lacking a strong

overall majority, he formed coalition to both the Liberal

Democrats and Plaid Cymru and is remembered for reaching out to

opponents to get his programme through. I think Rhodri Morgan

didn't suffer fools gladly and that's an important point to make

but on the other hand, he recognised that the talent that we have in

Welsh politics doesn't reside exclusively in the Welsh Labour

Party. He saw people who had constitutional vision, who shared

his commitments to the future of devolution in the other parties as

well. His legacy has continued in the past for

He has left us with a strong National Assembly in Wales. An

Assembly where there is a recognition that we do things

differently, that what is right for the rest of the UK is not

necessarily right for Wales and that we need to provide our own solutions

to our own problems. He made that happen, he has done things

differently, and I think he has also saved the Labour Party in Wales.

Unlike most political leaders, Rhodri Morgan left office when he

wanted to go. No politician gets everything they wanted to accomplish

while in power but the firm foundations he left for Wales' new

democracy means he will be well remembered.

Thank you for coming in at the end of a very difficult week. One of the

things I have always wondered is when you started advising Rhodri

Morgan, did you ever tried to change the image that he had or was it

anything that was honed by you at all? I would have been a brave woman

and, if I'm being really honest, I thought I could put him in some nice

suits, but he was what you saw. He was exactly the same whether he was

sat at home around his kitchen table, digging in his garden,

meeting the Queen or other heads of state. He was exactly as you saw

him. I might have taken him on the odd shopping trip now and again but

Rhodri was Rhodri. That is why there has been so much warmth and lovely

tributes paid to him in the last few days, because people did think he

was authentic, he wasn't an identikit politician. So did you

make a virtue out of necessity, almost? He was what he was. Image

aside, he had a phenomenal brain, really strategic in terms of

political planning. Marco remembered this but I remember quite soon after

starting, there was an issue of some kind and I asked Rhodri what he

thought, we needed to come up with a solution, and he was taking a long

time, probably a couple of days. I said to Mark, this is getting

frustrating now. I need an answer for the media. Mark just said, wait,

you will come back, and invariably the decision he has made will be the

right one. You work with him probably longer than anyone else in

politics. What are your earliest memory of working with him? I

arrived to work in the Assembly in the year 2000 but I had no Rhodri

for a long time before that. Julie Morgan and I were elected to South

Glamorgan county council on the same day in 1985 and we used to joke and

say, we were elected before you because he was first elected in

1987. I knew him before the Assembly started. All of that was very

important to me in working in his team, being part of his advisory

team, because you begin to have an understanding of the way that

someone is going to be thinking about something. And then to be able

to work with them to try and help them to do things in a way that is

right for them. In the early days, we have heard about how he worked

when he became First Minister, but was there ever an exasperation that

he couldn't do more? He was putting in place the building blocks, the

foundations, so that the Assembly would not sure, but did he ever want

to get on with it and move on to bigger things? One of the things I

think is worth saying, everything we have heard about how fantastic

Rhodri was with people is absolutely true. Sometimes that disguised his

public image, the fact that he was a deeply serious politician with a

deeply serious idea from the very beginning about what he wanted to do

too much or devolution, to settle devolution. When I arrived in the

year 2000, I remember thinking this was an organisation right on the

brink. That first year had been absolutely draining for everybody

involved. And I think in those very first weeks and months, he really

did think that what he was doing was trying to claw our way to some sort

of stability that would allow him to begin the work of setting devolution

on a proper footing. When you say on the brink, what do you mean?

Politically, or the whole organisation? One is that the

referendum was very narrowly won and there was still an awful lot of

people in 2000 who thought that devolution simply would not succeed.

In that very first year, they were gathering quite a lot of evidence to

demonstrate to them that they were right about that. So there was an

institutional issue. And there was a personal issue as well. People who

had been elected to the Assembly were exhausted by that experience of

winning a referendum, setting up a place, getting yourself selected,

getting yourself elected, trying to get through the first year without a

majority. That was absolutely about trying to find your way to a place

where you could begin the business of settling devolution into the

place that it is today. I joined later in 2006 and even then it was

eight, ten months ahead of the Assembly elections. In the debates

at that point, you still had the people on the panel saying abolish

the Assembly. So the amount of time and effort he put into that can't be

underestimated and he never took it for granted. You told me this

morning about how it was you that was asked to form that Lib Dem

coalition, which stabilised everything in those early days. In

May 2000, Labour formed a minority administration. They were 28 votes

and that meant every single decision was being negotiated as he went

along. Rhodri said to me, go away and find out whether there is still

an appetite in the Liberal Democrats to form a coalition. In the way that

politics is, he said to me, if it doesn't work, you will be on your

own, and if it begins to succeed, let me know. Throughout the summer,

I would do the legwork, I would report back to him, he and Mike

German would get together at strategic points, and by the time we

got to September, we felt there was a deal to be done and that, in my

mind, is what provided at first Assembly with that platform, without

stability, and from there on Rhodri was absolutely serious in creating a

government, separating it from the Assembly, giving people confidence

in Wales that when things went wrong, that was the place to go to.

Over that winter there was flooding, there was foot and mouth, there was

the fuel crisis, and as those things happened, people began to look to

the Assembly for the political leadership that was necessary in

Wales. I believe, and I think Rhodri believed, that over that autumn and

winter, that is when the corner was turned and that is when the Assembly

began to be the organisation it has begun today. When you came on board

in 2006, he had been First Minister for six years. Did he have any

regrets? Was he frustrated when he looked back at the time when the

money was coming in and yet they were still grumblings about

services, education and hospitals and so on? I think he realised it

was going to be a long haul. Making the institution is something that

people actually felt warmth towards. And he was always looking to the

future. He was always planning the next step. One of the really big

issues straight after the 2007 election was the coalition with

Plaid Cymru. The amount of strategic foresight that he showed in that,

such a difficult time, but it provided stability for the next four

years and much-needed stability because you could easily have seen

it slipped back if that had not been the case. 2007, Labour did not have

the majority and it was the rainbow coalition, the Tories, Lib Dems and

Plaid Cymru, which seemed to be on the verge of happening. Did you feel

for him at that point? No, you are in politics to play the game to the

conclusion. Taking him home from the count at about 4:30am and saying,

tomorrow, you are still First Minister and we will go and sit in

the First Minister 's office and we will see where things go from there.

His belief always was that if you were a Labour politician with things

you wanted to achieve, with all the frustrations that come with it and

the compromises you sometimes have to make, being in office is how you

get things done for people who depend on you. What was the main

compromise he felt he had to make, do you think? He had to work with

other parties and the Labour Party in its DNA has not always been a

party that has found that easy. But he recognised straightaway, he made

a phone call to the Prime Minister of New Zealand first thing that

morning, Helen Clark, because the New Zealand system is very close to

ours, and she said to him, Rhodri, if you want to be in government, you

have got to get on the dance floor and dance. You have got to get out

there and he did that from the very beginning. As a former education

journalist, I was always interested when he said his greatest

achievement was the foundation phase. What was it about it? A

belief that every child deserves the best start. Economic development was

one of his absolute passions but unless you get the building blocks

there right at the very beginning. He believed passionately that we

started formal education of children far too soon. He travelled around

looking at different models. And so it was the very big and very

expensive policy that he was determined to see through from a

very early age -- very early point. He hated the fact that you could

come across children in his own constituency who by the age of seven

felt that school was not for them. They already felt left behind. And

learn through play, that ability for children to enjoy learning and a

real love of learning was awake he thought you could overcome an

historical deficit. It was Jane Davidson was Education Minister at

the time. Was it a collaboration or something that came from himself?

Bringing on women in politics is one of the great achievements of Rhodri

which we have not heard enough about. How important was it? He came

from a household where women were very important. His mother lived to

100. Julie, his wife, herself. Women mattered to him in politics.

Bringing Sue Essex and Jane Davidson into the first Cabinet he really

formed is a sign of the way that he promoted women to the most serious

positions in Welsh politics and always thought that was something he

was determined to do. And absolutely serious about gender balance in the

group. He had a really good idea. He was able to meet someone who was

quite new to politics but he would say afterwards, she is going to

stand in politics. He was very supportive. Finally, a fondest

memory? There are so many. I think just chilling in his garden, him and

his worse for wear clothes, giving you a bag full of vegetables to take

home and just having a good crack with him. There are far too many but

I will give you just one, walking down the hill in Aberystwyth in the

election campaign of 2003. My job was to get into the radio Stadium

for a live studio. He said, we will just walk down. Could we get there?

People crossed the road to speak to him, to shake his hand. We knew they

were not going to vote Labour but it was a Welsh speaking heartland,

everybody wanted to say they had met him. Thank you very much.