28/05/2017 Sunday Politics West Midlands

Good morning and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

New CCTV images are released showing suicide bomber, Salman Abedi,

on the night he attacked Manchester Arena, killing 22 people.

Are the politicians and the security services doing

Theresa May says Britain needs to be "stronger and more resolute"

in confronting extremist views, as she outlines plans

for a new Commission to counter extremism.

We'll be talking to the Security Minister.

Jeremy Corbyn says a Labour government would recruit 1,000

more staff at security and intelligence agencies.

And in the Midlands: It was dubbed "the dementia tax",

Do pensioners in marginal seats think the Tory numbers

supporters. In London, we look at what the Conservatives are offering

the capital, having voted Remain. To help guide me through this

morning, I'm joined by Steve Richards, Julia

Hartley-Brewer and Tim Marshall. They'll be sharing their thoughts

on Twitter and you can join So, with a week and a half to go,

the election campaign And some recent polls

suggest the race is just We'll be taking a closer look

at that in just a moment but, first, here are some of the key events over

the next 10 days or so: Tonight at 6pm will see the third

of the party leader interviews. This time it's the SNP's

Nicola Sturgeon facing questions While many across the UK will be

enjoying tomorrow's bank holiday, there will be no break

in campaigning for And in the evening it will be

the turn of Ukip's Paul Nuttall On Tuesday the SNP

publish their manifesto - the last of the major parties to do

so - after last week's Then on Wednesday, the BBC's

Election Debate will see representatives from the seven main

parties debate in front On Thursday, Lib Dem leader Tim

Farron will have his interview... Before Friday's Question Time

special with Theresa May They won't debate each other,

but will take questions consecutively from members

of the audience. The final week of campaigning

is a short one, with politicians cramming in three days

of door-knocking before voters go We'll have an exit poll once

voting has ended at 10pm, with the result expected early

in the morning of June 9th. Well, it's Sunday, and that always

means a spate of new opinion And they make for fascinating,

if a tad confusing, reading. There are five new opinion

polls today, which have the Conservative lead

over Labour anywhere from six points to 14 points.

So, what's going on? Professor John Curtice

is the expert we always turn to at times like this,

and he joins me from Glasgow. Take us through these polls. They

seem to be all over the place? They may seem to be but there is a very

consistent key message. Four of these five polls, if you compare

them with what they were saying before the Conservative manifesto

launch on the 18th, four say the Conservatives are down by two

points. Four of them say the Labour vote is up by two points. A clear

consistent message. The Conservative lead has narrowed. Why does this

matter? It matters because we are now in a position where the leads

are such that the Conservatives can no longer be sure of getting the

landslide majority they want. Some posters suggesting they may be in

trouble and it is going to get rather close. Others suggested is

further apart. There are two major sources of... The Poles agree that

young voters will vote Labour if they vote. Older voters will vote

for the Conservatives. How many of those younger voters will turn out

to vote? The second thing is whether the evidence in the opinion polls

that the Conservatives are advancing more in the North of England and the

Midlands is realised that the ballot box? If it is not realised, the

Tories chances of getting a landslide look remote. If it is,

they could still well indeed get a majority more than 80%. The

Conservatives have lost some ground depending on which opinion poll you

look at. What about the Labour Party? It is gaining ground. It has

been gaining ground ever since week one. They started on 26, they now

average 35. There were a lot of people out there at the beginning of

the campaign who were saying, I usually vote Labour but the truth is

I'm not sure about Jeremy Corbyn. They seem to have decided the Labour

manifesto wasn't so bad. They have looked at Theresa May and have said,

we will stick with Labour. Labour have managed to draw back into the

fold some of their traditional voters who were disenchanted,

together with, crucially, some of those younger voters who have never

voted before, who have always been a particular target for Jeremy Corbyn.

What is your reaction to previous opinion polls and elections weather

has been a feeling that some of the Labour support has been overstated?

This be a worry this time? That is one of the uncertainties that faces

the opinion polls and the rest of us. We had a conference on Friday at

which it was carefully explained that pollsters have been trying to

correct the errors that resulted in an overestimation of Labour support

a couple of years ago, particularly among younger voters. You shouldn't

assume the opinion polls will be wrong this time because they were

wrong the last time. We want in truth know whether or not the polls

have got it right. Even if they are wrong in terms of the level, they

are not wrong in terms of the trend. The trends have been dramatic so

far. A big rise in Tory support early on at the expense of Ukip. And

subsequently, a remarkable rise in Labour support, albeit from a low

initial baseline. This election has already seen quite a lot of

movement. We shouldn't rule out the possibility there will be yet more

in the ten days to come. That is his analysis. Let's talk to

the panel. Julia, how concerned should Conservative headquarters be

at this particular point at what looks like an apparent surge by

Labour? Depends if you want a massive landslide majority or might

not. I assume the Tory party do. Whether anybody thinks that is a

good idea is a different matter. Undoubtedly the manifesto league was

a total disaster. Social care policy and the U-turn. Lots of stuff in the

Labour manifesto was very appealing. The tactic from Sir Lynton Crosby

was clear. It is all about Theresa May. Don't even mention the

candidate or the party. The Labour Party, the candidates are on the

moderate side are saying, don't mention Jeremy Corbyn. This has been

a battle between two big people. The more we have seen of Theresa May,

she has gone down. The more we have seen of Jeremy Corbyn, he has gone

up. If you make it about strong and stable leadership and then you do

something like a massive unprecedented U-turn on a key policy

like social care, the knock is even greater. Do you think that is the

reason for the change in the opinion polls or is Labour gaining some

momentum? I think it is part of the reason. You can understand why the

focus was on her at the beginning because her personal ratings were

stratospheric. What is interesting is all successful leaders basically

cast a spell over voters in the media. None of them are titans. All

of them are flawed. It is a question of when the spell is broken. This is

a first for a leader's spell to be broken during an election campaign.

That was a moment of high significance. The fact the Labour

Party campaign is more robust than many thought it would be is the

other factor. I think it is the combination of the two, that the

trend, as Professor John Curtis said, the trend has been this

narrow. There has not been much campaigning. Local campaigning

resumed on Thursday, national campaigning on Friday. Do you think,

Tim Marshall, that the opinion polls are reflecting what happened in

Manchester and people's thoughts about which party will keep them

safe? No, I think that will come next week. I think it is too soon

for that. It was quite understandable from the V -- the

very beginning for Lynton Crosby to frame the campaign in terms of

Theresa May and Brexit. The electorate can have its own view.

You always have to go back to Clinton's it's the economy stupid

for most of the electorate. It is framed in your electricity bill. It

is framed in your jobs. Both manifestos have got more holes in

them than Swiss cheese. It comes down to which manifesto you believe.

The Labour manifesto makes more promises about things you care about

like your electricity bill. Interesting, but in the end despite

while we thought would be a Brexit election, it has been a lot about

public services. It always comes down to bread-and-butter issues. I

don't think we have quite seen how the terrorist you has played out. We

had the Westminster attack only a couple of months ago. That was

already factored in in terms of who you trust and who you don't trust.

The IRA stuff from Jeremy Corbyn is already factored in. People actually

care about how ordinary government policies affect their lives. Thank

you very much. The election campaign was,

of course, put on hold following the terrorist

attack in Manchester But now that campaigning has

resumed, it's hardly surprising that security

is now a primary concern. The Labour Party has announced it

would recruit 1,000 more Jeremy Corbyn, speaking on ITV at

short while ago, says previous cuts have undermined security.

It seems that the cuts in police numbers have led to some very

dangerous situation is emerging. It is also a question of a community

response as well. So that where, an imam, for example, lets the police

he is concerned about a muddy, I would hope they would act. And I

would hope we have -- and I would hope they would have the resources

to act as well. Joining me now from Leeds

is the Shadow Justice Good morning. You have announced a

thousand more Security and Intelligence agency staff. That is

in line with what the government has already announced and the Shadow

Home Secretary, Diane Abbott, has said you would not be spending any

more money. It doesn't amount to much, does it? That is just one of

the parts of our pledge card on the safer communities. There is also

10,000 extra police, because the Conservatives cut the police by

20,000. That 10,000 extra police would mean in -- and extra police

officer in each neighbourhood. There are 3000 extra put -- prison

officers. Prison staff has been cut by 6000. That is a third. It is not

helping keep communities safer. We are pledging 3000 extra

firefighters. Also, a thousand extra security staff and 500 extra border

guards. There have been 13 areas identified where our borders are not

as secure as they should be. That is the list of numbers you have given.

If we concentrate on the security services, because it was Jeremy

Corbyn he said there will be more police on the streets under Labour.

If the security sources need more resources they should get them. Why

aren't you giving them more? We are committing to a thousand more

police. The Godinet is doing that as well. You are not committing

anything more. The government has not delivered on that promise. We

will deliver on that promise is -- promise. What Jeremy has made very

clear is that you can't do security on the cheap. Austerity has to stop

at the police station door, and at the hospital door. But we will be

giving the resources required to keep our communities safer. So you

will give them the resources and more powers? Well, the police need

to be empowered. But when you listen to what the Police Federation are

saying, they have been speaking out for a long time about the danger

caused by police cuts. And I'm talking not only about terrorism,

not only about acts of extreme violence, but anything from

anti-social behaviour to burglary. Use it more powers. What sort of

powers are you thinking of giving the security services? We need to

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

intelligence community and the security service, to the army and

the police, about what they think and how they think our communities

could be made safe. One thing is clear. Cutting the number of police

by 20,000 makes our community is less safe, not more safe. You said

you will listen to the security services. Can voters be reassured

and guaranteed that Jeremy Corbyn will listen to the security services

and the police in terms of more powers if that is what they want?

Until now he has spent his whole political career voting against

measures designed to tackle home-grown and international

terrorism. Jeremy Corbyn's speech on safer communities earlier this week

made clear he is listening to the security services. So he would grant

those new powers. He voted against the terrorism Act in 2000, into

thousands and six. In 2011. And in 2014, the data retention and

investigatory Powers act. Which new powers will he be happy to enact?

Just to say, Jeremy Corbyn along with Theresa May, David Davis and

many Conservative MPs, voted against legislation where they thought it

would be ill-advised, ineffective or actually counter-productive. It is a

very complex situation. What we don't want to do is introduce

hastily prepared laws with one eye to the newspaper headlines, which

can act as recruiting sergeants for terrorism. And actually, when I said

earlier that Jeremy Corbyn made clear in his speech this week that

he has been listening to the security services, what he said

about the international situation has also been said by the former

head of MI5, Stella Rimington, and her predecessor. As well as

president of back -- President Barack Obama.

You say he will give the police and security services the resources and

powers they need. If we look back at some of the legislation Jeremy

Corbyn and others voted against in 2000, it gave the Secretary of State

the -- new powers... Does Jeremy Corbyn still think that is a bad

idea? Jeremy Corbyn along with Theresa May, David Davis and

others... I know you want to bracket it with Conservatives but I'm

interested in what Jeremy Corbyn will do when he says we are going to

be smarter about fighting terrorism. If he's not prepared to vote in

favour of those sorts of measures, or trying to impose restrictions on

suspects, I'm trying to find out what he will do. It is a complex

situation. With this legislation the devil is often in the detail. If it

was a simple and stopping terrorism by voting a piece of legislation

through Parliament, it would have been stopped a long time ago. Sadly

there are no easy answers, and that is recognised by Barack Obama,

Stella Rimington, the head of the MI5, by David Davis and other

Conservative MPs. What is clear, as Jeremy made clear in his speech this

week, is the way things are being done currently is not working. We

have got to be tough on terrorism and the unforgivable acts of murder,

but also tough on the causes of terrorism as well. The sad truth is

there are no easy answers. If there were, the problem would have been

solved a long time ago. If you more security and terrorism officers but

your leader is still uncomfortable with giving them the powers they

need to do their jobs because it is complicated legislation, they will

want to know how you are going to do it. At another stop the War rally in

2014, Jeremy Corbyn said the murder of a charity worker was jingoism. At

the beginning of that speech he mentioned the importance of the

one-minute silence for the memory of Alan Henning who was murdered. What

he has also made clear is responsibility for acts of terrorism

and murder lies with the murder, and something that's really disappointed

me is that the Prime Minister said the other day that in Jeremy

Corbyn's speech on this on Monday, he said... Whether she agrees with

him on his politics, she knows he didn't say that in his speech, but

what troubles me is you have got a Prime Minister who must have sat

down with her advisers earlier that day and said, well I do know he

didn't say that but if we say he did we might win some votes. I think

that is shameful and it shows Theresa May cannot be trusted. These

issues should transcend party politics. We need to pull together

on this issue. Thank you very much. Well, the Conservatives have

promised a new statutory commission The party says it will identify

extremism, including the "non-violent" kind,

and help communities stand up to it. Also this morning,

the Security Minister, Ben Wallace, has attacked internet giants

for failing to tackle terror online, and accused them

of being ruthless money-makers. Welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Those comments you have made about social media companies failing in

their responsibility to take down extremist material, what will you do

to compel them? I think we will look at the range of options. The Germans

have proposed a fine, we are not sure whether that will work, but

there are range of pressures we can put onto some of these companies.

Some have complied. In the article in the Sunday Telegraph today I did

say it is not all of them. They are not immune to pressure. We can do

internationally, and the Prime Minister urged at the G7 and

international response. I think there are a range of issues. We

could change the law. You mentioned the G7, and rhetoric and warm words

are fine to an extent but it is action people want. If you have made

these impassioned remarks in the newspapers about them failing to do

the job, people want to know what powers do you have now to say to

social media companies take down this material? We have an act that

was recently passed. In this area we have just finished consulting on one

of the areas we could use but we cannot pre-empt the consultation. We

have right now officials from my department over in the United States

with American officials working with CSPs because what we see is that

they do respond to pressure. The best example is we think they have

the technology and the capability to change the algorithms they use that

maximise profit over safety. But you are relying on these companies

devoting more resources to this line of work that you would like to see

them do. Have you got any evidence they will do that? They said, only a

few weeks ago before the election was called the Home Secretary hosted

a Round Table with them. We have evidence they are trying to improve

it. A few are refusing to or being difficult, and that's why the Prime

Minister was right to step up not only the language she was using but

to say we are not going to allow this to progress any more. People

will be worried about who will make the judgment about what is

unacceptable and what should be taken down. Let me show you this,

which was shared widely across social media. If you read that quote

you could argue it is at the same end if you like. The man in the

picture is a terrorist hate preacher, the jihadist who was

killed in Yemen by the Americans. Is this the sort of thing you would be

demanding social media companies take down? You have to look at the

context it was deployed in. I could show you some of the 270,000 pieces

we have had removed since 2010 from internet sites that have been

extreme. The big issue is not often the individual image, it is the way

these companies set up the algorithms to link you. If you were

watching that on Facebook delivered to you, perhaps you would like to

look at this, because that's how they set it up. If you go onto

YouTube, you can get let down the path from looking at Manchester... I

understand your example, but from a practical level are you expecting

media companies to take down that sort of posts if it appeared? Yes...

You are? Who will make the decisions about what will radicalise young

people that could lead someone down the path to let off a bomb? If I

invite your viewers to look at the work the Guardian have done on

Facebook guidance, to say for example it is OK to produce videos

or broadcast videos of seven-year-olds being bullied as

long as it wasn't accompanied by captions, I don't think you need to

be an expert to say that is not acceptable. Something more worrying

for you as a journalist and me as a politician, another set of guidance

that says... I think this is quite menacing... That certain people

don't deserve our protection. That includes journalists and politicians

and people who are controversial. So I think there is more work to be

done but at the end of the day it is the pathway this stuff leads to. It

is more about examining how much progress you can make. The

Government says there are up to 23,000 potential terrorist attackers

in this country, 3000 of those posing a serious threat being

monitored. That is pretty disturbing, these are big numbers.

Yes, and the tragedy of Manchester shows this is not about failure, it

is about the scale of the challenge we face and that is why it is

important that alongside people is powers. Should you double the size

of MI5 for example? We have increased year-on-year in real terms

not only the money but the numbers of people in MI5. It is now 2000 we

have committed to increased to... Before the attack. Before our

manifesto we had recruited, we have increased the whole of government

spending on counterterrorism from ?11.7 billion in 2015 up to 15.7

billion. Would you expand the number of people in MI5? I have asked them

on a regular basis if they have the resource if they are happy with it,

and the answer comes back time and time again, yes we are. You have

quite extensive powers at your disposal, the question is if you are

using them. Measures were introduced in 2012 to replace control orders,

but they have rarely been used. Only seven are currently in operation.

Why? Because there are a whole... It is just one tool in the tool box.

Other powers we use, we take away people's passports if we think they

are about to travel. How many? I cannot comment, it is a sensitive

issue. Plenty of people are finding their passport has been removed and

at the same time we strip people of citizenship to make sure they don't

come back. On top of that, because of the investment made in GCHQ, MI5

and counterterrorism, we have more powers and more ability to monitor

them. But are you using them enough? Only seven TPIMs are in operation.

You won't give me any of the other measures at your disposal, but if

they are only in single figures, that doesn't seem to compare with

the numbers who are being monitored. Also, we have to strike a balance

between... We have to satisfy the court so we have to make sure there

is enough evidence to restrict people's freedoms. TPIMs do all

sorts of good things to keep people safe. It sends people away from

where they live, it tags them... I tell you why they are better. The

control orders were on track to be struck down by the courts because

one of the things we have to satisfy is the courts but we also have to

satisfy, we have to make sure we get the balance between the community is

right and the measures we take. If we alienate our communities, we

won't get the intelligence that allows us to catch it. There is no

point in having more police and intelligence services if you don't

give them the powers to do the job. Jeremy Corbyn were licensed James

Bond to do precisely nothing. And -- thank you.

The revelation that the Manchester suicide bomber, 22-year-old

Salman Abedi, was born in this country has raised fresh concerns

about the effectiveness of the UK's counter-extremism policy.

In a moment we'll be talking to two people who've spent their careers

investigating radicalisation in the UK.

Douglas Murray, of the Henry Jackson Society,

and Sara Khan, author of The Battle for British Islam and CEO

of the counter-extremism organisation Inspire.

We asked both for a personal take on how to confront the problem

of Islamist extremism. First up, here's Douglas Murray.

Even after all these dead, all this mourning and defiance,

We remain stuck in the John Lennon response to terrorism -

Our politicians still refuse to accurately identify

the sources of the problem, and polite society

This country gave asylum to the Libyan parents of Salman Abedi.

Their son repaid that generosity by killing 22 British people,

one for each year of life this country had given him.

We need to think far more deeply about all this.

Eastern Europe doesn't have an Islamic terrorism problem

France has the worst problem because it has the most Islam.

Are we ever going to draw any lessons from this?

For the time being, the game is to be as inoffensive as possible.

The rot isn't just within the Muslim communities.

Consider all those retired British officials and others who shill,

and are in the pay of the Saudis and other foreign states,

even while they pump the extreme versions of Islam into our country.

It is high time we became serious too.

Islamist extremism is flourishing in our country.

We're failing to defeat it, so what can we do about it?

Whenever I say we must counter those Muslim organisations

who are promoting hatred, discrimination, and sometimes even

violence, I'm often either ignored by some politicians out

of a misplaced fear of cultural sensitivity, or I find myself

experiencing abuse by some of my fellow Muslims.

These groups and their sympathisers tour Muslim communities,

hold events, and have hundreds of thousands of followers

Yet there is little counter challenge to their toxic

anti-Western narrative, which includes opposition

I've seen politicians and charities partner

with and support some of these voices and groups.

Many anti-racist groups will challenge those on the far

right but not Muslim hate preachers, in the erroneous belief that to do

But it's Islamophobic not to challenge them because it implies

Following the attack on Monday, it cannot be business as usual.

We must counter those who seek to divide us.

Sarah Karen Allen Douglas Murray join me know. You wrote a book,

strange death of Europe. What did you mean in your film when you said,

let's get serious? Several things. Let me give you one example. The

young man who carried out this atrocious attack was a student at

Salford University for two years. He was on a campus which is, from its

leadership to its student leadership, opposes all aspects of

the government's only counter extremism programme. They boast they

are boycotting it. They always did this. The university he was at was

against the only counter extremism policy this state has. This is just

one example of a much bigger problem. What are you suggesting?

Shut down the University? Force them to change their policies? I think in

the case of Salford, which discourages students from reporting

Islamic extremism... When you discover you have produced a suicide

bomber in Manchester, you should be held responsible. What do you say to

that? I think it is quite clear from I am experienced there have been

politicians who have undermined Prevent, community organisations,

Islamist groups who have been at the forefront of undermining and

countering Prevent, but also wider counter extremism measures. Islamist

-- Islamist extremes and has flourished in this country. If

Summer Rae had given us a crystal ball ten years ago and said, look

forward and you will see hundreds of people leave this country to join

Isis, we will have hundreds of people convicted of Islamist

offences, I think we would have been quite shocked that things have got

worse as opposed to getting better. Douglas Murray, the essence of your

argument when you made the comparison between the numbers of

Muslims in other countries is that we have too much Islam in Britain?

The aunt Tilly Muslim Brotherhood give is that the answer to

absolutely everything is Islam. Less Islam is a good thing. Let me

finish. The Islamic world is in the middle of a very serious problem. It

has been going on since the beginning. I think it is not worth

continuing to risk our own security simply in order to be politically

correct. I would disagree with Douglas on that. Nobody is going to

deny that since the end of the 20th century there has been a rise in

Islamist extreme terror organisations. Yes, there is a

crisis within contemporary Islam, but there is a class. There are

competing claims about what the faith stands for. While we are

seeing Islamist terror organisations, leading theologians

are saying that the concept of a caliphate is outdated. Muslims

should be adopting a human rights culture. I entirely agree with that.

There are obviously people trying to counter that. I would urge us to

take the long view. In the history of Islam there have been many

reformers. Most of the time they have ended a up being the ones on

the brunt of the violence. I deeply resent what you and others do in

this country. I want you to win. But they are a Billy good minority. A

poll last year found that two thirds of British Muslims found they would

not report a family member they found to be involved in extremism to

the police. You are proposing more Draconian measures. I wish they

could win. We should do everything we can to support people like that.

What we should recognise the scale of the problem is beyond our current

understanding. You counter radicalisation on a university

campus or online? Discussion we had with Ben Wallace about the material

that is out there. If we pursue in a hard-line way perhaps the sort of

thing Douglas Murray is suggesting, gone is freedom of speech, gone is

freedom of debate and discussion? The best way to counter extremism is

through the prism of human rights. We cannot abandon our human rights

to fight extremism. Where I think we are going wrong, where there is a

gap, is the lack of counter work to challenge Islamist ideals. How many

people are going to say we need to counter that strict narrative? That

is where we are not doing enough work. What about the human rights

point, that you cannot take away people's human rights? I'm not

suggesting that. I'm suggesting we do things that ensure that 22 people

don't get blown up on an average Monday again, OK? Dissent to be

opposed to people want to blow up our daughters is not opposing human

rights. If you're taking government money and you are an institution

like Salford University you should be held responsible for not

cooperating with standard security measures. You can challenge

extremism without abandoning human rights. We have got to actually

counter the Islamist narrative. We're not doing enough. This is not

about closing down free speech. This is encouraging it. This is the most

effective way of countering the Islamist narrative. Why isn't it

doing better? A number of reasons. One is there is a denial taking

place. A lot of apologetics. Part of it is the way we talk about Muslims

in this country. We use the term Muslim community as if they are

homogenous. There is a positive trend but there is a negative trend

among British Muslims. We need to counter those promoting the idea

that Muslims are part of a collective identity. I agree. It is

also the case there is massive push back because a lot of Muslims are

defending the faith in this country. We think we can push them down a

better path but they are defending absolutely everything. We need to

get real about that. Thank you very much.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now

Hello again. minutes, the Week Ahead.

Welcome to the Sunday Politics in the Midlands.

First it was dubbed "the dementia tax".

Do pensioners in a Conservative marginal think the party's numbers

add-up on social care now Theresa May's promising to limit

what they'd have to pay to be cared for at home?

Khalid Mahmood for Labour and Marcus Jones for the Conservatives.

They were both MPs in the last Parliament and they're both bidding

And we'll hear how the Liberal Democrats hope to regain at least

some of the ground they lost two years ago.

But we begin, of course, with the aftermath of those terrible

And here, too, we've seen armed police patrols at public buildings,

in shopping centres and on trains, although the downgrading

of the threat-level should see a slight easing on this,

Inevitably, terrorism, and what's to be done about it,

has ratcheted-up the pre-election agenda, with the parties

trading blows over policing and the Prevent strategy

Incidentally, Khalid Mahmood has defended that Prevent strategy,

while senior Labour figures including Jeremy Corbyn

and the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, have been

We hear that the Home Secretary plans to give Prevent an uplift,

speaking as directly as you do for the Muslim community. Why do you

think the Government should persevere with Prevent? It's a

mechanism that we'd started and a mechanism that we deal with people

and communicate with people. I think there are issues that we have used

to deal with it. What about the stigmatisation of a whole community?

What needs to be addresses how we address the mainstream Muslim

community. Part of the problem is we have dealt with small bits of the

community but overall it is setting up helplines some people can report

things at a local and national level. This is the criticism we have

heard against it from senior figures, that it stigmatises and

create suspicion over an entire community, most of whom are

law-abiding, decent people. We can forget this was a despicable act of

terrorism and my thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and

their families, but as Theresa May has said today, enough is enough. We

can't see this continue to disrupt our British way of life including

all communities across this country and quite rightly we are going to

lift the Prevent strategy to include all parts of the community. But as

the Police Federation said during the week, how can you call yourself

the party of law and order when you reduce police numbers by something

over 10,000, 20,000? Weed in the process at the moment of recruiting

and bringing forward 1900 counterterrorist officers -- we are

in the process. What I would say is it's really important we do have the

security services we need. It's very disappointing to see the real Labour

Party wanted is buying things like MI5. 1900 police officers and armed

officers were cut but the key to all this is the community support

officers and those on the ground every day. They get a huge amount of

intelligence. By cutting them to the bone like the Government has done

that has had a huge effect. Are forces in this area are starting to

recruit and uplift more officers. We got rid of a huge amount of

experienced people and now we have to start again. That's where the

problem is, we've lost all on experience. We need those eyes and

ears on the ground to be able to come back to us. Are you

acknowledging, Marcus, that it was a mistake? I don't disagree beneath

the eyes and ears on the ground. Changes have had to be major to the

massive deficit that was left behind by the previous Government but we

are now bringing from 1900 officers. Counterintelligence because we need

to make sure that we're doing all we can to foil these terror plots and

the problem is that the terrorists only need to be lucky once. We need

to be lucky all the time. Can the Muslim communities themselves do

more to combat radicalisation? The community needs to do that and they

do. We sometimes hold ourselves hostage by a small minority of

people and we need to break through them and the mainstream community

needs to come out. The first party to resume

political hostilities Their leader, Paul Nuttall,

told me it was "an act of defiance" The vast majority of Muslims

were law-abiding, but he said I reminded him the West Midlands

Ukip MEP, Jim Carver, had resigned as foreign affairs

spokesman because he "strongly disagreed" with their "misguided"

call for a so-called "burqa ban". I don't actually agree with Jim

on this, and Jim are great friends, we go back many, many years,

but we're not just talking about face coverings of Muslims,

we're talking about face coverings in general so if you turn up

at an EDL march or an EDL rally and you cover your face,

that should be illegal as well, but the one point I will make

is that this is all about community cohesion and if you want to enjoy

the full fruits of our brilliant society, you have to be prepared

to show your face because it precludes you from communicating

with people, it preclude you from taking up certain jobs,

but also it's about security as well because, whether we like it or not,

we're the most watched people in the world,

there's more CCTV per head in Britain than anywhere else

on the planet and for that to be effective, you need

to see people's faces. Put all this together and does it

not amount to basically stigmatising the Muslim community,

the vast, vast majority of whom condemn terrorism as strongly

as anybody possibly could? Absolutely, and the vast

majority of Muslims in this country are peace-loving,

they love this country, they add to our economy

and they're great people. There is a small section within that

community that are a problem, the Islamic fundamentalists,

and they are the people Do you agree with your affairs

spokeswoman that some conservative mosques should be closed

down and shut? I think we should be looking

at the funding of certain mosques, like Saudi funding of mosques

could be a problem because we know that Saudi Arabia spreads

fundamentalism around the globe. We have a problem with a small

number of people within that community and I encourage the Muslim

community itself to report these people to the police

because what we've got to do is to cut this cancer out

of our society because if we don't, pretty soon, the next attack

could well be round the corner. And we're also joined

here today by John Hemming, who served for ten years

as the Liberal Democrat MP for Yardley in Birmingham,

until Labour won it two years ago. John, if you have long experience of

Birmingham's politics, you read a Liberal Democrat leader on the

council before you became an MP and so you know the areas of the inner

city where the Liberal Democrats have built a measure of support.

From your perspective, how do you see issues that we've been touching

on today? We're missing an important point in all this. When I was deputy

leader of the Council, I work closely with the faith leaders group

and as MPI had a local multi-faith group and there is an important

grassroots approach. I have a statement from a local mosque

received, we condemn this criminal action and we hope the perpetrators

are brought to justice, wherever they may be. We urge everyone to

stand shoulder to shoulder, United to eliminate all kinds of terrorism,

extremism and barbarism from our society. We would all agree with

that and I think I could get the others to sit with me on a platform

arguing for a grassroots revulsion, rejection of the idea that it is

acceptable to murder children because that's what it's about. It's

not about a little bit of money here and there, it's fundamentally wrong

to do this sort of thing and we need to say that and encourage those

people in my constituency. Mosques speak out. We need to encourage that

as a grassroots uprising against terrorism. Does Paul Nuttall have a

point that the two big parties need to speak a more direct terms rather

than pious platitudes and hand-wringing that we often get? I

read a column today about Prevent and I made it clear that the Muslim

community can help to move forward. Tom Watson and I visited a number of

mosques and in all of those mosques there was a clear statement from the

pulpit saying we condemn this. Theresa May has used very strong

language and despite the fact you have a clip from Tom Nuttall -- Paul

Nuttall, there is a massive choice in this election, if you want

Theresa May running the country, she has been at the G-7 this week

persuading the G-7 countries to take far more action against Internet

providers that don't stamp out radicalisation and Jeremy Corbyn who

has a despicable record of voting against anti-terror legislation. One

particular point, the idea of banning Islamic faith is -- Islamic

face coverings. That's nonsense, it's a religious right and people

should be able to exercise it. You will not create more integration by

banning it because the women who want to exercise it will stay at

home and how is that integrating? Where there is a need for checks to

take place for security purposes, that should happen and that's it.

As political climb-downs go, the Conservatives' backtrack

on the so-called dementia tax after just four days is among

Instead of forcing elderly people who need care at home to be liable

for potentially unlimited sums, Theresa May hurriedly promised those

But will the cap fit, with the voters?

Shelley Phelps has been testing pensioners' opinions in that

"weather vane" constituency of Nuneaton in Warwickshire.

This building has been at the heart of the old mining community

in Chapel Hill since the 1920s, first as a cinema and

Nuneaton is a marginal Conservative-held constituency,

so I've come here to see if pensioners understand

Erm, they want to cap it, they want to take so much off.

The Conservatives are making a right muck of it.

You could forgive them for being confused.

On Tuesday, the Prime Minister was accused of being weak and wobbly

after she appeared to U-turn on her party's social care manifesto

This manifesto says that we will come forward

but the consultation paper, the Government green paper,

and that consultation will include an absolute limit on the amount that

people have to pay for their care costs.

No mention of a cap or limit in here.

Labour said the numbers don't add up.

They haven't said what the cap is, they haven't explained

to the millions of people who are desperately worried

at the moment about what kind of care they're going

This is a Government in chaos and confusion.

Under the current system, if you need care at home you'll pay

the cost of it in full if you have savings and assets worth

Now, that doesn't include the value of your home.

Under the new Conservative manifesto proposals,

the value of your home will be included in a means test,

but you're guaranteed to keep at least ?100,000.

She has carers in four times a day and her son Brian

Because the care Ivy receives is predominantly social,

such as help with washing, dressing and eating, it's

If she had another condition such as cancer, she would

You buy your own home, you save and everything else,

then when you get to the point where you need help,

The Foys are just one family so how popular is the Conservatives' social

It's certainly more popular, for instance, than the suggested

changes to school meals, but what's important about this

particular manifesto is not support for the specific policy,

but instead how that informed people's views and gained momentum

and produced negative feedback about the way the Conservatives

and the Government were handling the whole situation.

Back at the bingo, these voters had a mixed reaction.

Yes, it would be nice if everybody could have the Government pay

for their care, but that's not going to happen, is it?

If you own your own house you've paid for all your life,

I won't be voting for Theresa May either, because she's not

Is that the only reason you're not voting for her?

Theresa May might be a popular leader, but her social care policy

isn't hitting the jackpot with voters here.

Shelley Phelps reporting from Nuneaton.

It's the constituency in which Marcus Jones is now

The problem here is that you talk about a cap but really that doesn't

have much meaning to anybody unless you specify when exactly is going to

be set. You got a look at both sides of the situation. The reporter

mentioned facility care but didn't mention care homes where the

property is taken into account right down to ?23,000. We want to allow

people to keep 100,000 but we're saying we will provide a cap and

this is not inconsistent with what have said for some time after the

budget where we said we were going to bring forward the opportunity for

councils to have an extra ?9 billion in social care. But what is the

right figure for the cap? We are bringing a Green paper forward and

within it we will specify what the B. ?100,000... There are accusations

of intergenerational unfairness were younger people pay on unfair

percentage of the burden and where older people should be paying more

of it. You pay to your national insurance contributions and that

goes for you when you become all that as well. As part of a social

plan that all of us contribute and people get older and we move on and

cycle moves on, it's not about saying, those people are now old and

young people don't need to look after them, that's not the society I

want and what Theresa May has done is arrogance to the extreme wishy is

taking lunches away from young people and houses away from the

other way. What is a Liberal Democrat answer which is fair but

sustainable in the long term? You have to look at the IFS figures, the

Institute for Fiscal Studies. The website is available to look up.

Other proposals seem to be sustainable in the medium to long

term. It's a cap of 72,000, but the point of it is that people have paid

taxes all of their lives and is it reasonable to say, well, now we're

going to take it all off of you when you're old and you certainly end up

with Alzheimer's? ?100,000 is quite a lot of money. I do think the fact

that Theresa May has said there are no -- there is no clarity about the

cap, we're now in an election. If the cap was ?1 million it would be a

different ball game. Looking at the politics of this, I think it could

be damaging to Theresa May. MLB heard that the spell of her

leadership order has been broken -- earlier we heard. The man dubbed by

the press to the Birmingham Rasputin was the architect of this particular

provision. Would she inevitably be lined up as the fall guy for this?

At the end of the day we're fighting an election and it not great to have

an autopsy about what goes right or wrong during a campaign. He thought

it up, "Assistant heads will roll." The Prime Minister has been right to

raise this issue, it's a fundamental social issue by people's feedback is

people who do work can't do right people who do work can't do right

thing and have savings and get their own property, it is right that they

have a degree of protection but it's also right that we support the most

vulnerable in society. You cannot vulnerable in society. You cannot

have older people cast doubt on the street. It's arrogance on the part

of President May. That's what she did and she's is gritty take

responsibility -- she is going to take. Considering the Liberal

Democrats' position of trying to regain lost ground, Cheltenham is

the top target in this part of the country on the basis of swing, but

on the basis of the Shire elections, there is no evidence the Liberal

Democrats are going to regain the ground. On the 26 elections -- 2016

elections we got the majority of the vote saw indications are we going to

regain Yardley but the fact Theresa May is fighting an election where

she would tell people what the social care plan is is worrying a

lot of elderly people. Is the Liberal Democrat voice being

squeezed out? The you squeeze me out in the programme because you

prevented me from debating various issues. The BBC is explicitly

squeezing us out from debate as you saw earlier. That is another

conversation. We'll have an interview with your party leader

next week for the programme. Thank you for being with us here today.

Despite the pause in political hostilities following the Manchester

concert attack, there are still some developments to catch-up

This week's round-up in 60 Seconds is brought to us

There was a minute's silence for the victims of the Manchester

bomb before the colourful parade got underway for the thousands attending

Sad news from Herefordshire after the announcement

of the death of Paul Keetch, the former Liberal Democrat MP for

Back on the campaign trail and the Shadow Foreign Secretary

was on the patch getting the Labour message across in those Midlands

marginals in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Birmingham and Wolverhampton.

I think things are beginning to turn.

We have another two weeks but I think people are beginning

to realise that the Conservatives did not have a vision

Former Birmingham City Councillor and Respect leader Salma Yaqoob

has also been busy - she's hoping to make a comeback

as the next independent MP for Bradford West.

And forget the opinion polls - if you want to know the result

election, just head to this sweet shop in Warwick.

Punters here correctly picked the winner of the last election

So now we know, it all comes down to a sweet tooth, maybe I've been

wasting my time all these years! But Emily Thornberry thinks things are

turning but we had John Curtis the polling expert earlier in the

programme saying beneath the headline narrowing the maybe still

areas like the Midlands where Conservatives are hanging on to

support were the most need it will Labour's support might be growing in

the areas where you least need it. The election will tell that but at

the end of the day if you look at what the Tories put in a manifesto,

the way they are pushing people with austerity in terms of police cuts

and other cuts that are coming through, people are realising that

an Labour Party has produced a manifesto which means supporting all

of our services and a different option to what the Conservatives are

proposing. If the Conservatives don't get a majority of over 80,

Theresa May's talk of a strong hand will be for nothing, won't it? We

only care about the election day itself. There are 11 days and the

bottom line is people have a very straight choice. People have got to

choose between the strong leadership of Theresa May and has a plan to

take us forward out of the EU on a coalition based on chaos with Jeremy

Corbyn as people who want to stay with the EU.

My thanks to Khalid Mahmood and Marcus Jones.

Finally from me, a word about a special Midlands Today

debate show I'll be presenting this week.

Election 2017: Where You Live is on Tuesday evening at 10:45pm,

immediately after the news here on BBC One.

Leading figures from our five biggest parties will be

going head-to-head, in front of a studio audience.

This, though, is where we rejoin Jo Coburn.

re-elected. Is the only choice for strong and stable leadership.

Now, after the Manchester attack, will the final week of election

campaigning different in tone from what came before? My panel are here.

Tim Marshall, it will be very front of Centre for the next few days. Is

that a good thing for the election if it is going to be framed to who

do you feel more safe with? It is inevitable but I think it will only

be part of the election. As I said before the opt out, for many voters

this is also about economics, unemployment. It is not all about

Brexit, nor is it only about security. What it will do, I hope,

is get the tone of the debate right. Although I have already seen the

tone being lowered. I wasn't impressed with Mr Corbyn's speech

last week blaming it on a foreign policy, which is a wafer thin

analysis of what is going on. Inappropriate timing too soon? No, I

think the argument is utter nonsense. I don't want to attack

just one side. The Conservative party, I've forgotten which minister

has already said that we would be safer under a Tory Prime Minister,

it has got nothing to do with Labour or Tory government, the next Islamic

attack. It is to do with jihadist ideology, not party policies. You

raise an important issue about tone. It also points to a broader

argument, one we were having earlier, has politics been two

courses with this issue of extremism? Has the conversation

about it tiptoed around some of the sensitive issues? And by the media.

You highlight the problem of this being part of the election campaign

by saying, has politics been too cautious? Who do you mean by

politics? And in an election campaign there is a duty to be a

divide, and adamant about values, policies etc. Security is an issue

that transcends those political divides. So I think it is deeply

unhealthy. It is nobody's fault a tragedy occurred. But if you ask me

does it help or enhance an election debate? Emphatically not. A tragic

event brings politics, as you call it, together. Security is an issue

that is complex and doesn't divide neatly. Elections are political

battles, by definition. So I think the coming together of this, a

tragedy occurred anyway, but it is an unfortunate context. Do you agree

or do you think this is a time to talk about these issues? Is it a

time to review the level of argument? This is a political

debate. I personally think the politicians should have been out and

about on Wednesday. There is no wrong time to get it right. We

mustn't let the terrorists affect our way of life. But they have when

we disrupt the election campaign. It may be party political. But for a

lot of voters, including me, I want to hear from party leaders. What do

you plan to do about this? Right now, I've not heard anything that

suggests any of these parties have got to grips with the real problem,

which is that we are not actually tackling the problem in our midst.

Douglas Murray touched on it earlier. We have not even come to

grips with the scale of the problem. Does Labour have a grip -- Power

Point in terms of terrorist legislation? It is complicated. And

not all of it has worked or is used enough by government? It is another

example where this doesn't work in an election debate because David

Davis has opposed a lot of this terrorism legislation. He is now

heading Brexit. There is a civil liberties argument which I

personally have doubts about. Again, it brings people together from the

major parties. And Corbyn didn't actually say it was the cause of

terrorism, British foreign policy, but it helped to facilitate

terrorism, which is a different argument. Again, that would be

supported by some Tories as well. That is why it is difficult in an

election campaign for this issue to dominate. The front page of the

Sunday Times talks about a campaign relaunch, which may not, grow as a

great surprise following the social care fiasco. Do we know what that

will entail? It sounds like Boris Johnson will play a role. The whole

point is it was all about Theresa May and it turns out that is not

quite good enough. The more we have seen of Theresa May, the less

impressive she has looked. Certainly the Andrew Neil interview just

repeating the same thing again and again. Voters don't like that. They

like people who are honest and actually engage with them. When we

see beat interviews in the next few days, I think it will be interesting

to see if she changes tack and tries to engage with what people are

asking. If it is back to leadership and Brexit, and the economy, will

that be more comfortable ground? I think so. I understand framing it in

terms of Brexit. But she has got to broaden it out. I think that is why

she is broadening it out. I don't think the tragic events will

absolutely dominate. That would be a small victory for terrorism. This is

a country of 65 million people with an awful lot of issues. We have 65

million votes, well, 65 million people with opinions in two weeks.

It is quite a long campaign. There is still time to go. What do you

think Labour will be focusing on from now on? I would imagine they

will look very closely at where they are well ahead in the opinion polls

and focus on that relentlessly. Public services, NHS etc. And try to

get it off as soon as possible from security and fees is used which, on

one level at least, appear to be a gift to the Conservatives. I assume

that is what they are going to do. But this is a very unpredictable

campaign where nothing has gone according to plan. Let's look ahead.

On Wednesday evening we have got an election debate. It is in Cambridge.

Leaders of some of the parties. Amber Rudd will be representing the

Conservatives. We don't know yet who will represent Labour. Today we have

had Amber Road and Diane Abbott against each other on Andrew Marr.

Let's have a look. I think there is something to be said for a Home

Secretary who has actually worked in the Home Office. I work in the home

office for nearly three years as a graduate trainee. This government

has always felt that urgency. That is why we have been putting in

additional money. It is significant that the commission for extremism in

the manifesto was put in before Manchester. We need to do more. You

voted against prescribing those groups. Because there were groups on

that list I deemed to be dissidents rather than terrorist organisations.

We are making good progress with the companies who put in place

encryption. We will continue to build on that. It was 34 years ago.

I had a rather splendid Afro at the time. I don't have the same

hairstyle. And I don't have the same views. It is 34 years on. The

hairstyle has gone. Some of the views have gone. So you no longer,

you regret what you said about the IRA? The hairstyle has gone, the

views have gone. I would say to Diane Abbott that I have changed my

hairstyle are few times in 34 years but I have not changed my view of

how we keep the British public safe. Let's get away from hairstyle sides

talk about the prospect of the two of them taking part in the election

debate. Would you like to see that? On one level I would like to see it

and another the level I would like to see an intelligent debate. I'm

glad I never had an Afro or supported the IRA. Whenever Diane

Abbott steps out in a TV studio or a radio studio, Labour haemorrhage

votes. She cannot say things like my regret supporting this or that

legislation. She is an absolute disaster. If Labour put her up, they

are beyond mad. Who do you think Labour should put up? By the way, I

did have an Afro! I based my whole log on Kevin Keegan and it was good.

That is the wrong question. I will explain why. The Labour campaign, it

seems to me there were only five or six people put up. That is the fault

of others who refused to take part. It also shows the degree to which

the current leadership can only rely on five or six people. I would

imagine we are talking about a pool of five or six people. As for my

judgment as to who the best public performer is in that pool, it would

be by some margin John McDonnell, who is a very good interviewee and

performer. I think he is a very good performer. It would come back to the

economy at some point, presumably. But then it comes back to the IRA. I

don't think the debate will be very illuminating. I think if Amber Rudd

is there, Diane Abbott should be there. I think the leaders should be

debating. Some people say it is froth. I think the leader -- the

electorate gets a sense of the leaders. On haircuts, I would like

to thank both of them are talking about the haircuts. I am looking

forward to tomorrow's papers and the theme that will run through the

week. Let's not finish on the hair. Thank you very much for being our

guests. That is it for today. Thank the panel for Jonny May. Andrew Neil

will be back next weekend. And I will be back on BBC Two on Tuesday.

That is at midday with more daily politics. In the meantime, have a

very lovely bank holiday. From all of us here, bye-bye.

As voters prepare to go to the polls to choose who represents them

the SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon joins me for the Andrew Neil Interviews.

One minute to get the food on the plate.

..team them up with a Michelin starred chef,

putting their reputation on the line.

..which team will have the recipe for success?

One minute to get the food on the plate.