21/05/2017 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

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?

Later on the Sunday Politics: The candidates vying for Grimbsy

And I take the wheel on an election car share with a former

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. It's just gone 11.35,

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

in Scotland and Wales. Hello, you're watching

the Sunday Politics what could the changing

face of Grimsby tell us And I set off on an

Election Car Share with a former But why isn't Baroness Warsi

voting for the Tories? Who will you be voting

for on June 8th? If you were in any doubt

about why our part of the world is at the centre of

the general election battle, then you only had to look at this

week's manifesto launches. Jeremy Corbyn unveiled Labour's

proposals in Bradford on Tuesday, and two days later Theresa May

appeared in Halifax to reveal a clear sign that voters along

the M62 corridor could once again But there are many other areas

where the fight for votes is stepping up a gear,

including Grimsby. It's been a Labour seat since 1945,

but the bookies now have Labour down as odds-on to lose

Great Grimsby on June the 8th. In a moment,

we'll meet the candidates, but first Kate Sweeting has this

assessment of the economic factors which could influence

voting in the town. In the warm spring sunshine,

Grimsby is bustling, but do those out enjoying

the weather today feel the town's I would say there's no

jobs around the people, because I've got family that's

trying to look for jobs, I think it's getting better

and better these days. It's struggling for opportunities,

and investment and things like that sort of, where it's going to end up

in the future. Millions of pounds has been spent

on improving Grimsby's image to try and encourage more investors to come

here, but it's clear not everyone that lives in the town

thinks it is on the up. Grimsby was once the world's

largest fishing port, but the decline of the industry has

led to the rise of new ones, like those supporting

offshore renewable energy, But some, like ex-trawlerman

Philip Playford, How do you feel about

the future of Grimsby? Years ago, you could go from one job

to another in the same day. So you don't think

things are any better? Others say, though, the so-called

good old days were overrated. And in some respects

it's a good thing it has gone. You think it's better for people,

young people in particular? Oh, yes, yeah,

because it was a real terrible life. They used to get sores

from the saltwater, and they used to be

cold during the winter. Well, I feel that the area

is on the up again. Maybe five or ten years

down the road from now, with wind farms and everything

that's coming up to the bank, Everyone I spoke to agreed that

Grimsby's economy has changed but some are still finding plenty

to sing about. And we are joined live this morning

by three candidates fighting for the Great Grimsby constituency, Labour

Melanie, conservative's Joe Gideon and Ukip's Mike. Melanie, as you

know, the bookies now have the Tories down as favourites to win

Great Grimsby. Why do you believe that you are an outsider in a seat

Labour has held since a long time ago?

I take these balls with a pinch of salt. Looking at what the Tories

have done over the last seven years the towns like Grimsby, not just

Tories. People have not had 8p rise Tories. People have not had 8p rise

in the last seven years. An explosion of zero hours contract. --

they have not had a pay rise. And we have had our public sector cut to

the bones, council and NHS and education is suffering. Those of the

things people need to think about when it comes to the general

election and how they will vote on the 8th of June.

Joe. Melanie says Grimsby suffered under the Tories, why should people

vote for you? Lot of people in Grimsby say the

most important thing for them is to have a good Brexit under a strong

and stable Government, and Theresa May is the person of choice.

How many people, how many times will we hear strong and stable?

I got it out of the way early. But the fact is Brexit is the thing that

has changed the political landscape in Grimsby.

With all due respect, you have been here for a matter of days, and the

idea that this gives you any kind of understanding or knowledge of the

difficulties that exist in Grimsby... Of course Brexit is part

of it but it is not everything to do with the argument. We have an NHS

Trust that has gone into special measures twice under the

Conservatives, and to local nursery schools...

Madaya interrupted with some airtime?

Nursery schools under threat of closure and education system under

billions of cuts. The thing about Brexit which is at

most in the majority of people in Britain's mines in the moment, we

don't have a good deal from Brexit, all the public services that we care

about, it is not a monopoly of the Labour Party to care about public

services... But we say that in order to serve those public services we

need a strong economy. To have a strong economy we need the best deal

after Brexit. The things are inextricably linked and people

understand. Michael, Grimsby was a target seat

for Ukip. You still say it is. But given the cars in the poll ratings

for Ukip, disastrous local election results, can you describe yourself

as a serious contender? Absolutely. We had a tough time at

county elections but we still have 300 councillors across the country

and we still have people in the Welsh assembly and the strongest

party in the European Parliament. We have 20 MEPs there, and

representation on the London... We are still fighting and fighting for

this seat. And I believe... These goals are arguing between

themselves... But the people I talk to on the streets of Grimsby say

they have been abandoned by the Labour Party for 75 years and the

Tories have done them no good. And they are looking for something

different and a change. That changes Ukip.

Girls, do you want to respond to that?

I do not want to be referred to as a girl. But the last two years, I have

done a huge amount. As a local MP, obviously, I am born and bred in the

area, and good morning to my son who I think is watching. I have managed

to bring more jobs to sectors, travelling industries, saved 300

jobs in Youngs. How many jobs for local people...

And managed to stop the cutting of the direct rail link between Grimsby

and Manchester, saving sheltered housing. That is the hallmark of it

accessible champion of the local community. Who understands the local

issues. Mike asked how many of those new

jobs have gone to local people? Those jobs are growing. We have had

hundreds more. And... But if I talk to local businesses, who had based

themselves... And international companies who we should be proud of,

the fact they went to come and based themselves in Grimsby. If we're

talking about having a bright future and offering new opportunities to

young people, that is what we should be doing. But surveys are telling me

there are local people in there. There are specialised jobs that

initially were not the local people because they were so specialised,

and the training was. And the key thing now is about making sure the

training is available for young people, and I have spoken to young

apprenticeship to transfer from transfer from mechanics, from hair

and beauty and gone into working in apprenticeships for the renewables

sector. That is positive and exciting.

I was with Charles and Philip Hammond Grimsby Institute on Friday.

-- the Chancellor. He was positive about the work it is doing training

of young people in those industries. I am positive about that group in

the future. But that future is entirely dependent on having a

strong economy, businesses having the confidence to invest in the

town. Mike said that 72 years of Labour MPs in the town and we have

seen a downturn. A lot of dereliction in the town centre. A

law needs to be done. I come from the outside, as Melanie says. I come

at a fresh pair of eyes and people status have a change in Grimsby. My

background is business, educational training, sign to bringing

investment. I would like to make a point, Martin Vickers brought the

chain connection... And Melanie came in at the end...

Know, very much a... I keep supporting our initiative.

It was a local campaign run by local people. Talking about investment,

jobs were under threat in Grimsby and I managed to bring ?1 million

into support that, and more investment coming into our town

centre as a result of the action I have taken as Grimsby's MP for the

last two years. I will say there are two and the

candidate standing in the Great Grimsby Place. Liberal Democrat's

Steve Beasant an independent candidate Christina McGilligan-Fell.

What people really want now is true change -

the Liberal Democrats can offer that.

This time we are in a lot better place than we was in 2015.

I recognise that, but we are offering some real alternative

policies this time - education funding, health funding -

and we are going to make it a fairer society,

we are, for the people of Great Grimsby.

We are going to make sure people don't get neglected.

I believe that I could be the voice of the people.

I'm very aware of the people not having a voice sometimes,

and I believe that there are a lot of people that might just consider

that the independent vote is worth their vote,

so I would actually throw that right back.

Why not let that alternative vote be for you?

Mike Hook, as well as the candidate in Grimsby for Ukip, you are also

there fisheries spokesman. Fisheries minister has said this weekend that

after Brexit we will control access to our waters up to 200 nautical

miles offshore. That is not the words. The words

are, they will control the historic sovereign waters, which are, if you

look into it, 12 miles. Not 200 miles.

They said 200 miles. The 200 mile economic zone came in

in 83 when... They're talking about 12 miles. Are backpedalling. They

also said they would negotiate with other countries on vessels coming

into our waters. That means to me she will negotiate with Brussels.

That means foreign vessels will still fit our waters. She has not

repealed the 64 London act, which means again that foreign vessels

will fish our waters. Do you want to car by this? There is

ambiguity about the fishing proposals announced in the Tory

manifesto. manifesto.

I want to clarify it but the key thing that I would differ with Mike

is that in talking about the fishing industry in Grimsby, currently, as

many fish go through Grimsby as did when we were at the world's largest

fleet of trawlers. But they are in the fish processing are not fish

capture. I think we have to be careful, looking to the future, that

the future is in fish processing. You say the fishing industry has no

future in terms of trawlers? I say the fishing industry, as it

exists now, and likely to exist in the future, is about processing fish

from Iceland and Norway. And so... This is our waters, our fish, our

jobs. I was in the north-east on Friday, and there was a guy there

having to buy... Having to rent fish. He had to rent a box of fish,

?60, to run at four. How much will you sell out for, I said? He said,

?60. Some days I don't make a penny because I have to pay my crew and

diesel. This is our water and we want it back. It should be

non-negotiable. Our waters, Harvard, non-negotiable. Our waters, Harvard,

our jobs. To get it back, it will take at

least ten years to build up. The process is there and there is a

lot of investment needed. The process... We process a huge

amount of fish from other countries outside the European Union. We are

Europe's food town. We can still do that. We will

process it and it will come into our ports, our processors, we will

process and export. Wearable bees come from into our

port? Our water and our seas.

-- where will those that come from? Not talking a deep Sea Fleet. A

bilateral agreement in the future with Iceland, Norway and Denmark,

which means ten meter or 50 metre vessels. Grimsby is the biggest part

in the country -- it was. We have six vessels now struggling to make a

living. Melanie Onn...

We need to have a viable fishing We need to have a viable fishing

industry again. Is that one of the reasons Grimsby

voted so heavily in favour of Brexit, because they have seen their

fishing industry shafted by Brussels?

People are concerned about the laws of the fishing industry because it

has been there big industry and they need to replace it. Although we have

big businesses in Prevacid balls -- pharmaceuticals, petrochemical and

renewables. But others were promising people we would have our

fishing industry back. There is nothing in the Conservative

manifesto about Grimsby and its fishing industry and I would like to

ask Jo, if she had the Brexit secretary incomplete. Did she ask

about this? I have been asking questions in Parliament that show

that absolutely no mention of our fishing industry has been made so

far in the negotiations with leaving the EU.

I keep asking me, Melanie. Andrea Leadsom had a productive meeting...

What about the Brexit secretary? He is leading the negotiations, so what

did he say? Andrea Leadsom is leading Biafra,

and death threats in charge of fishing.

Years in the negotiations. -- Andrea Leadsom is leading Defra

and Defra is in charge of the negotiations.

A lot of things have been made to be...

Has not had... Briefly, very briefly we have to

move on. Shameful that these two arguing

about the fishing industry. We put an amendment to the Brexit vote in

Brussels a view years ago and that Brexit... The run and we put

together would safeguard British water and fish and jobs. Every one

of the Labour and Conservative MEPs voted it down.

A huge issue and we will come back to it no doubt after the election.

Now, over the course of the campaign, I'll be

going on an Election Car Share with senior figures

from the world of politics in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.

Today, it's the turn of Dewsbury lass and former Conservative Party

Baroness Warsi, welcome to Election Car Share.

I almost expect some Minions to jump out the back, actually.

Can I ask you to select a track for the journey?

Well, in light of the fact that this looks like the Grumobile,

I think we should play the Minions track.

So, how are you finding the campaign so far?

It's a campaign that put us all off guard.

We weren't expecting an election, and now come into it,

we've done a number of campaign launches, and it's quite good fun,

actually, being back, being back out on the campaign trail.

Well, I've worked with Theresa for over a decade, but Theresa

She doesn't really treat it as, of, a lifestyle choice

where she socialises in the bars and the coffee shops

So I think, as a colleague, she's a very safe pair of hands.

You were part of that first coalition Government back in 2010.

It was a real privilege, and, you know, for somebody like me,

from where I was from in Dewsbury, to think I would end up

So, to serve in Government is a huge privilege,

but there was a time and a place for it,

Would you go back into Government if the opportunity were to arise?

I don't think I'd say never, because, look, it is a privilege

So I'd never say never, but it would have to be

for something quite specific that I really wanted to do,

and the Government of the day felt that I was the best person to do it.

I should almost say you should go right, shouldn't I?

That's the last left turning we are taking.

Is the Conservative Party a good place to be a Muslim woman?

The Conservative Party is a party that speaks for all of Britain,

I've recently been writing about this, about the challenges

in Government policy towards British Muslim communities.

You've written a book called Of The Enemy Within.

Well, the title comes from a phrase that was used about me

A right-wing writer said, to paraphrase, how can we deal

with the war on terror when we've got Baroness Warsi,

And I thought that was a deeply hurtful insult.

And I always think that the best way to deal with insults

is to field it well, and so my way of fielding that

insult was to write this to pick out the nonsense of that phrase.

I was critical of the way in which counterterrorism

policy was being made, because it wasn't

So, something like the Prevent programme, which aims to stop young

people becoming radicalised, is that still fit for purpose?

The Prevent programme was a fantastic programme when it

It was supposed to be a genuine battle of ideas,

for us to look at not just terrorism, but the drivers

of terrorism, and the causes of terrorism.

And unfortunately a policy which started off to be done

in conjunction with Muslim communities ended up being a policy

which was done to communities, and deeply distrusted by those

communities, and that's why me, along with a whole series of people,

are asking for an independent review of this, which I sincerely hope

So, crucial question, Baroness Warsi -

who will you be voting for on June the 8th?

As a member of the House of Lords, I don't have a vote

So that must be quite frustrating for you,

sat at home on June 8th, not being able to go out

I will still be going out and encouraging other people

to vote Conservative, and I will be using all the influences

I think we have had enough of the Minions now.

Have you got another track you would like to choose?

Yeah, it's a track which are used during the election in 2005,

John Kerry used it, and that's why I used it,

But actually it probably encapsulates what people will be

saying towards the end of this election campaign, which is,

"A little less conversation, a little more action."

# A little more bite A little less bark...#

Yes, that was Baroness Warsi. Next week I will be joined by a familiar

Labour figure. Interesting listening to Baroness Warsi there. She has

been at the top of the Conservative Party for many years but does not

seem to know Theresa May very well. Who knows anything about Theresa

May, she is a mysterious woman? She seems to keep itself separate

from people, whether that is a deliberate tactic or she is just not

very friendly, I don't know. That election seems to be all about

Theresa May. When I spoke to the Chancellor in your part of the world

on Friday, he said this was all about Theresa May's strong and

stable leadership, not Conservative policy. She is the poster girl for

your election. You describe her as that, but

absolutely. The choice is simple, it's between Theresa May's

premiership or Jeremy Corbyn, and she has shown herself to be that

Prime Minister that is... I think she manages to engage people across

the country from different walks of life in a way that no other leader

in my memory has done. OK. Your final pledges, really. What

is the one issue that will decide the election for you, Mike Hookem?

It is about Brexit and Theresa May also. A presidential election

really. She wants a strong mandate in Westminster so she can come back

from Brussels with a weak negotiation, and say, a deal in our

time, and to put a strong voice in for Grimsby you have to vote for

Ukip. Jo Gideon.

Two choices, both funny and you get Theresa May and Bob formality and

you get Jeremy Corbyn. Pensioners will be gutted by the

disappointing triple whammy of their allowance, but also the social care

pay, and it will be disappointed to cancelled. And rent to own is still

our policy. Thank you very much, Tom Brake. Andrew, back to you.

So, two and half weeks to go till polling day,

let's take stock of the campaign so far and look ahead

Sam, Isabel and Steve are with me again.

Sam, Mrs May had made a great thing about the just about managing. Not

the poorest of the poor, but not really affluent people, who are

maybe OK but it's a bit of a struggle. What is in the manifesto

for them? There is something about the high profile items in the

manifesto. She said she wants to help those just above the poorest

level. But if you look at things like the winter fuel allowance,

which is going to be given only to the poorest. If you look at free

school meals for infants, those for the poorest are going to be kept,

but the rest will go. The social care plan, those who are renting or

in properties worth up to ?90,000, they are going to be treated, but

those in properties worth above that, 250,000, for example, will

have to pay. Which leads to the question - what is being done for

the just about managings? There is something, the personal allowance

that David Cameron promised in 2015, that they are not making a big deal

of that, because they cannot say by how much. So you are looking in tax

rises on the just about managings. Where will the tax rises come from.

We do not know, that there is the 40 million pounds gap for the Tories to

reach what they are pledging in their manifesto. We do not know how

that is going to be made up, more tax, or more borrowing? So that is

why the questions of the implications of removing the tax

lock are so potentially difficult for Tory MPs. The Labour manifesto

gives figures for the cost of certain policies and where the

revenue will come from. You can argue about the figures, but at

least we have the figures. The Tory manifesto is opaque on these

matters. That applies to both the manifestos. Looking at the Labour

manifesto on the way here this morning, when you look at the

section on care for the elderly, they simply say, there are various

ways in which the money for this can be raised. They are specific on

other things. They are, and we heard John McDonnell this morning being

very on that, and saying there is not a single ? in Tory manifesto. I

have only got to page 66. It is quite broad brush and they are very

open to challenge. For example, on the detail of a number of their

flagship things. There is no detail on their immigration policy. They

reiterate the ambition, but not how they are going to do that, without a

massive increase in resource for Borders officials. We are at a time

where average wages are lagging behind prices. And in work benefits

remain frozen. I would have thought that the just-about-managings are

people who are in work but they need some in work benefits to make life

tolerable and be able to pay bills. Doesn't she has to do more for them?

Maybe, but this whole manifesto was her inner circle saying, right, this

is our chance to express our... It partly reads like a sort of

philosophical essay at times. About the challenges, individualism

against collectivism. Some of it reads quite well and is quite

interesting, but in terms of its detail, Labour would never get away

with it. They wouldn't be allowed to be so vague about where taxes are

going to rise. We know there are going to be tax rises after the

election, but we don't know where they will be. 100%, there will be

tax rises. We know that they wanted a tax rise in the last budget, but

they couldn't get it through because of the 2015 manifesto. Labour do

offer a lot more detail. People could disagree with it, but there is

a lot more detail. More to get your teeth into. About capital gains tax

and the rises for better owners and so on. The SNP manifesto comes out

this week, and the Greens and Sinn Fein. We think Ukip as well. There

are more manifestos to come. The Lib Dems have already brought theirs

out. Isn't the Liberal Democrat campaign in trouble? It doesn't seem

to be doing particular the well in the polls, or at the local elections

a few weeks ago. The Liberal Democrats are trying to fish in

quite a small pool for votes. They are looking to get votes from those

remainers who want to reverse the result, in effect. Tim Farron is

promising a second referendum on the deal at the end of the negotiation

process. And that is a hard sell. So those voting for remain on June 23

are not low hanging fruit by any means? Polls suggesting that half of

those want to reverse the result, so that is a feeling of about 20% on

the Lib Dems, and they are getting slightly less than half at the

moment, but there are not a huge amount of votes for them to get on

that strategy. It doesn't feel like Tim Farron and the Lib Dems have

promised enough. They are making a very serious case on cannabis use in

a nightclub, but the optics of what they are discussing doesn't make

them look like an anchor in a future coalition government that they would

need to be. I wonder if we are seeing the re-emergence of the

2-party system? And it is not the same two parties. In Scotland, the

dynamics of this election seemed to be the Nationalists against the

Conservatives. In England, if you look at what has happened to be Ukip

vote, and what Sam was saying about the Lib Dems are struggling a bit to

get some traction, it is overwhelmingly Labour and the

Conservatives. A different 2-party system from Scotland, but a 2-party

system. There are a number of different election is going on in

parallel. In Scotland it is about whether you are unionist or not.

Here, we have the collapse of the Ukip vote, which looks as though it

is being redistributed in the Tories' favour. This is a unique

election, and will not necessarily set the trend for elections to come.

In the Tory manifesto, I spotted the fact that the fixed term Parliament

act is going to be scrapped. That got almost no coverage! It turned

out to be academic anyway, that it tells you something about how

Theresa May is feeling, and she wants the control to call an

election whenever it suits her. Re-emergence of the 2-party system,

for this election or beyond? For this election, yes, but it shows the

sort of robust strength of parties and their fragility. In other words,

the Lib Dems haven't really recovered from the losses in the

last general election, and are therefore not really seen as a

robust vehicle to deliver Remain. If they were, they might be doing

better. The Labour Party hasn't recovered in Scotland, and yet, if

you look at the basic divide in England and Scotland and you see two

parties battling it out, it is very, very hard for the smaller parties to

break through and last. Many appear briefly on the political stage and

then disappear again. The election had the ostensible goal of Brexit,

but we haven't heard much about it in the campaign. Perhaps the Tories

want to get back onto that. David Davis sounding quite tough this

morning, the Brexit minister, saying there is no chance we will talk

about 100 billion. And we have to have power in the negotiations on

the free trade deal or what ever it is. I think they are keen to get the

subject of the manifesto at this point, because it has not started

too well. There is an irony that Theresa May ostensibly called the

election because she needed a stronger hand in the Brexit

negotiations, and there was an opportunity for the Lib Dems, with

their unique offer of being the party that is absolutely against the

outcome of the referendum, and offering another chance. There

hasn't been much airtime on that particular pledge, because instead,

this election has segued into being all about leadership. Theresa May's

leadership, and looking again at the Tory manifesto, I was struck that

she was saying that this is my plan for the future, not ABBA plan. Even

when talking about social care, he manages to work in a bit about

Theresa May and Brexit. And Boris Johnson this morning, an interview

he gave on another political programme this morning, it was

extraordinarily sycophantic for him. Isn't Theresa May wonderful. There

is a man trying to secure his job in the Foreign Office! Will he succeed?

I think she will leave him. Better in the tent than out. What did you

make of David Davis' remarks? He was basically saying, we will walk away

from the negotiating table if the Europeans slam a bill for 100

billion euros. The point is that the Europeans will not slam a bill for

100 billion euros on the negotiating table. That is the gross figure.

There are all sorts of things that need to be taken into account. I

imagine they will ask for something around the 50 or ?60 billion mark.

It looks that they are trying to make it look like a concession when

they do make their demands in order to soften the ground for what is

going to happen just two weeks after general election day. He makes a

reasonable point about having parallel talks. What they want to do

straightaway is deal with the bill, Northern Ireland and citizens

rights. All of those things are very complicated and interlinked issues,

which cannot be dealt with in isolation. I wouldn't be surprised

if we ended up with parallel talks, just to work out where we are going

with Northern Ireland and the border. Steve, you can't work out

what the Northern Ireland border will be, and EU citizens' writes

here, until you work out what our relationship with the EU in the

future will be. Indeed. The British government is under pressure to deal

quickly with the border issue in Ireland, but feel they can't do so

because when you have a tariff free arrangement outcome, or an

arrangement that is much more protectionist, and that will

determine partly the nature of the border. You cannot have a quick

agreement on that front without knowing the rest of the deal. I

think the negotiation will be complex. I am certain they want a

deal rather than none, because this is no deal thing is part of the

negotiation at this early stage. Sounding tough in the general

election campaign also works electorally. But after the election,

it will be a tough negotiation, beginning with this cost of Brexit.

My understanding is that the government feels it's got to make

the Europeans think they will not do a deal in order to get a deal. They

don't want no deal. Absolutely not. And I'm sure it plays into the

election. I'm sure the rhetoric will change when the election is over.

That's all for today, thank you to all my guests.

The Daily Politics will be back on BBC Two at 12.00

And tomorrow evening I will be starting my series of interviews

with the party leaders - first up is the Prime

Minister, Theresa May, that's at 7pm on BBC One.

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

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