:00:39. > :00:42.It's Sunday Morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.
:00:43. > :00:45.Labour attacks Conservative plans for social care and to means-test
:00:46. > :00:48.So can Jeremy Corbyn eat into the Tory lead
:00:49. > :00:54.Theresa May says her party's manifesto is all about fairness.
:00:55. > :00:58.We'll be speaking to a Conservative cabinet minister about the plans.
:00:59. > :01:01.The polls have always shown healthy leads for the Conservatives.
:01:02. > :01:06.But, now we've seen the manifestos, is Labour narrowing the gap?
:01:07. > :01:10.at the opposite ends of the Brexit spectrum.
:01:11. > :01:12.We're looking at the policies and chances of the Liberal Democrats
:01:13. > :01:26.And with me - as always - the best and the brightest political
:01:27. > :01:27.panel in the business: Sam Coates, Isabel Oakeshott
:01:28. > :01:29.and Steve Richards - they'll be tweeting throughout
:01:30. > :01:32.the programme, and you can get involved by using
:01:33. > :01:40.Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn says pensioners will be up to ?330 a year
:01:41. > :01:52.worse off under plans outlined in the Conservative manifesto.
:01:53. > :01:58.The Work Pensions Secretary Damian Green has said his party will not
:01:59. > :02:02.rethink their plans to fund social care in England. Under the plans in
:02:03. > :02:09.the Conservative manifesto, nobody with assets of less than ?100,000,
:02:10. > :02:13.would have to pay for care. Labour has attacked the proposal, and John
:02:14. > :02:16.McDonnell, Labour's Shadow Chancellor, said this morning that
:02:17. > :02:20.there needs to be more cross-party consensus.
:02:21. > :02:22.That's why we supported Dilnot, but we also supported
:02:23. > :02:25.Because we've got to have something sustainable over generations,
:02:26. > :02:28.so that's why we've said to the Conservative Party,
:02:29. > :02:31.Let's go back to that cross-party approach that actually
:02:32. > :02:34.I just feel we've all been let down by what's come
:02:35. > :02:45.Sam, is Labour beginning to get their argument across? What we had
:02:46. > :02:49.last week was bluntly what felt like not very Lynton Crosby approved
:02:50. > :02:53.Conservative manifesto. What I mean by that is that it looks like there
:02:54. > :02:58.are things that will cause political difficulties for the party over this
:02:59. > :03:02.campaign. I've been talking to MPs and ministers who acknowledge that
:03:03. > :03:08.the social care plan is coming up on the doorstep. It has cut through
:03:09. > :03:12.very quickly, and it is worrying and deterring some voters. Not just
:03:13. > :03:23.pensioners, that people who are looking to inherit in the future.
:03:24. > :03:26.They are all asking how much they could lose that they wouldn't have
:03:27. > :03:28.lost before. A difficult question for the party to answer, given that
:03:29. > :03:34.they don't want to give too much away now. Was this a mistake, or a
:03:35. > :03:41.sign of the Conservatives' confidence? It has the hallmarks of
:03:42. > :03:45.something that has been cobbled together in a very unnaturally short
:03:46. > :03:49.time frame for putting a manifesto together. We have had mixed messages
:03:50. > :03:53.from the Tory MPs who have been out on the airwaves this morning as to
:03:54. > :03:58.whether they will consult on it whether it is just a starting point.
:03:59. > :04:05.That said, there is still three weeks to go, and most of the Tory
:04:06. > :04:08.party this morning feel this is a little light turbulence rather than
:04:09. > :04:12.anything that leaves the destination of victory in doubt. It it flips the
:04:13. > :04:16.normal politics. The Tories are going to make people who have a
:04:17. > :04:23.reasonable amount of assets pay for their social care. What is wrong
:04:24. > :04:26.with that? First, total credit for them for not pretending that all
:04:27. > :04:31.this can be done by magic, which is what normally happens in an
:04:32. > :04:36.election. The party will say, we will review this for the 95th time
:04:37. > :04:40.in the following Parliament, so they have no mandate to do anything and
:04:41. > :04:44.so do not do anything. It is courageous to do it. It is
:04:45. > :04:50.electorally risky, for the reasons that you suggest, that they pass the
:04:51. > :04:56.target their own natural supporter. And there is a sense that this is
:04:57. > :05:01.rushed through, in the frenzy to get it done in time. I think the ending
:05:02. > :05:07.of the pooling of risk and putting the entire burden on in inverted
:05:08. > :05:15.commas the victim, because you cannot insure Fritz, is against the
:05:16. > :05:18.spirit of a lot of the rest of the manifesto, and will give them huge
:05:19. > :05:27.problems if they try to implement it in the next Parliament. Let's have a
:05:28. > :05:32.look at the polls. Nearly five weeks ago, on Tuesday the 18th of April,
:05:33. > :05:37.Theresa May called the election. At that point, this was the median
:05:38. > :05:43.average of the recent polls. The Conservatives had an 18 point lead
:05:44. > :05:51.over Labour on 25%. Ukip and the Liberal Democrats were both on 18%.
:05:52. > :05:56.A draft of Labour's manifesto was leaked to the press. In the
:05:57. > :05:59.intervening weeks, support for the Conservatives and Labour had
:06:00. > :06:05.increased, that it had decreased for the Lib Dems and Ukip. Last Tuesday
:06:06. > :06:10.came the launch of the official Labour manifesto. By that time,
:06:11. > :06:16.Labour support had gone up by another 2%. The Lib Dems and Ukip
:06:17. > :06:20.had slipped back slightly. Later in the week came the manifestos from
:06:21. > :06:25.the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. This morning, for more polls. This
:06:26. > :06:33.is how the parties currently stand on average. Labour are now on 34%,
:06:34. > :06:37.up 4% since the launch of their manifesto. The Conservatives are
:06:38. > :06:44.down two points since last Tuesday. Ukip and the Lib Dems are both
:06:45. > :06:49.unchanged on 8% and 5%. You can find this poll tracker on the BBC
:06:50. > :06:54.website, see how it was calculated, and see the results of national
:06:55. > :06:57.polls over the last two years. So Isabel, is this the Tories' wobbly
:06:58. > :07:02.weekend or the start of the narrowing? This is still an
:07:03. > :07:09.extremely healthy lead for the Tories. At the start of this
:07:10. > :07:14.campaign, most commentators expected to things to happen. First, the Lib
:07:15. > :07:20.Dems would have a significant surge. That hasn't happened. Second, Labour
:07:21. > :07:25.would crash and plummet. Instead they are in the health of the low
:07:26. > :07:31.30s. I wonder if that tells you something about the tribal nature of
:07:32. > :07:36.the Labour vote, and the continuing problems with the Tory brand. I
:07:37. > :07:41.would say that a lot of Tory MPs wouldn't be too unhappy if Labour's
:07:42. > :07:47.result isn't quite as bad as has been anticipated. They don't want
:07:48. > :07:54.Corbyn to go anywhere. If the latest polls were to be the result on June
:07:55. > :07:59.the 8th, Mr Corbyn may not be in a rush to go anywhere. I still think
:08:00. > :08:04.it depends on the number of seats. If there is a landslide win, I
:08:05. > :08:10.think, one way or another, he will not stay. If it is much narrower, he
:08:11. > :08:15.has grounds for arguing he has done better than anticipated. The polls
:08:16. > :08:20.are very interesting. People compare this with 83. In 83, the Tory lead
:08:21. > :08:33.widened consistently throughout the campaign. There was the SDP -
:08:34. > :08:36.Liberal Alliance doing well in the polls. Here, the Lib Dems don't seem
:08:37. > :08:38.to be doing that. So the parallels with 83 don't really stack up. But
:08:39. > :08:41.let's see what happens. Still early days for the a lot of people are
:08:42. > :08:46.saying this is the result of the social care policy. We don't really
:08:47. > :08:50.know that. How do you beat them? In the last week or so, there's been
:08:51. > :08:55.the decision by some to hold their nose and vote Labour, who haven't
:08:56. > :08:59.done so before. Probably the biggest thing in this election is how the
:09:00. > :09:06.Right has reunited behind Theresa May. That figure for Ukip is
:09:07. > :09:12.incredibly small. She has brought those Ukip voters behind her, and
:09:13. > :09:16.that could be the decisive factor in many seats, rather than the Labour
:09:17. > :09:21.share of the boat picking up a bit or down a bit, depending on how
:09:22. > :09:24.turbulent the Tory manifesto makes it. Thank you for that.
:09:25. > :09:27.We've finally got our hands on the manifestos of the two main
:09:28. > :09:29.parties and, for once, voters can hardly complain that
:09:30. > :09:33.So, just how big is the choice on offer to the public?
:09:34. > :09:35.Since the Liberal Democrats and SNP have ruled out
:09:36. > :09:37.coalitions after June 8th, Adam Fleming compares the Labour
:09:38. > :09:40.Welcome to the BBC's election centre.
:09:41. > :09:44.Four minutes from now, when Big Ben strikes 10.00,
:09:45. > :09:48.we can legally reveal the contents of this, our exit poll.
:09:49. > :09:50.18 days to go, and the BBC's election night studio
:09:51. > :10:00.This is where David Dimbleby will sit, although there is no chair yet.
:10:01. > :10:03.The parties' policies are now the finished product.
:10:04. > :10:06.In Bradford, Jeremy Corbyn vowed a bigger state,
:10:07. > :10:09.the end of austerity, no more tuition fees.
:10:10. > :10:17.The Tory campaign, by contrast, is built on one word - fear.
:10:18. > :10:25.Down the road in Halifax, Theresa May kept a promise to get
:10:26. > :10:28.immigration down to the tens of thousands, and talked
:10:29. > :10:31.of leadership and tough choices in uncertain times.
:10:32. > :10:37.Strengthen my hand as I fight for Britain, and stand with me
:10:38. > :10:44.And, with confidence in ourselves and a unity
:10:45. > :10:51.of purpose in our country, let us go forward together.
:10:52. > :10:54.Let's look at the Labour and Conservative
:10:55. > :11:00.On tax, Labour would introduce a 50p rate for top earners.
:11:01. > :11:24.The Conservatives ditched their triple lock, giving them
:11:25. > :11:26.freedom to put up income tax and national insurance,
:11:27. > :11:29.although they want to keep the overall tax burden the same.
:11:30. > :11:31.Labour offered a major overhaul of the country's wiring,
:11:32. > :11:33.with a pledge to renationalise infrastructure, like power,
:11:34. > :11:36.The Conservatives said that would cost a fortune,
:11:37. > :11:38.but provided few details for the cost of their policies.
:11:39. > :11:40.Labour have simply become a shambles, and, as yesterday's
:11:41. > :11:42.manifesto showed, their numbers simply do not add up.
:11:43. > :11:45.What have they got planned for health and social care?
:11:46. > :11:49.The Conservatives offered more cash for the NHS,
:11:50. > :11:52.reaching an extra ?8 billion a year by the end of the parliament.
:11:53. > :11:56.Labour promised an extra ?30 billion over the course of the same period,
:11:57. > :12:02.plus free hospital parking and more pay for staff.
:12:03. > :12:09.The Conservatives would increase the value of assets you could
:12:10. > :12:12.protect from the cost of social care to ?100,000, but your home would be
:12:13. > :12:14.added to the assessment of your wealth,
:12:15. > :12:18.There was a focus on one group of voters in particular
:12:19. > :12:24.Labour would keep the triple lock, which guarantees that pensions go up
:12:25. > :12:29.The Tories would keep the increase in line
:12:30. > :12:33.with inflation or earnings, a double lock.
:12:34. > :12:35.The Conservatives would end of winter fuel payments
:12:36. > :12:39.for the richest, although we don't know exactly who that would be,
:12:40. > :12:47.This is a savage attack on vulnerable pensioners,
:12:48. > :12:51.particularly those who are just about managing.
:12:52. > :12:55.It is disgraceful, and we are calling upon the Conservative Party
:12:56. > :13:02.When it comes to leaving the European Union, Labour say
:13:03. > :13:05.they'd sweep away the government's negotiating strategy,
:13:06. > :13:07.secure a better deal and straightaway guaranteed the rights
:13:08. > :13:13.The Tories say a big majority would remove political uncertainty
:13:14. > :13:26.Jeremy Vine's due here in two and a half weeks.
:13:27. > :13:32.I'm joined now by David Gauke, who is Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
:13:33. > :13:38.Welcome back to the programme. The Tories once promised a cap on social
:13:39. > :13:46.care costs. Why have you abandoned that? We've looked at it, and there
:13:47. > :13:51.are couple of proposals with the Dilnot proposal. Much of the benefit
:13:52. > :13:55.would go to those inheriting larger estates. The second point was it was
:13:56. > :14:01.hoped that a cap would stimulate the larger insurance products that would
:14:02. > :14:06.fill the gap, but there is no sign that those products are emerging.
:14:07. > :14:11.Without a cap, you will not get one. We have come forward with a new
:14:12. > :14:15.proposal which we think is fairer, provide more money for social care,
:14:16. > :14:20.which is very important and is one of the big issues we face as a
:14:21. > :14:25.country. It is right that we face those big issues. Social care is
:14:26. > :14:33.one, getting a good Brexit deal is another. This demonstrates that
:14:34. > :14:35.Theresa May has an ambition to lead a government that addresses those
:14:36. > :14:41.big long-term issues. Looking at social care. If you have assets,
:14:42. > :14:46.including your home, of over ?100,000, you have to pay for all
:14:47. > :14:50.your social care costs. Is that fair? It is right that for the
:14:51. > :14:56.services that are provided to you, that that is paid out of your
:14:57. > :15:00.assets, subject to two really important qualifications. First, you
:15:01. > :15:07.shouldn't have your entire estate wiped out. At the moment, if you are
:15:08. > :15:12.in residential care, it can be wiped out ?223,000. If you are in
:15:13. > :15:19.domiciliary care, it can be out to ?23,000, plus you're domiciliary.
:15:20. > :15:23.Nobody should be forced to sell their house in their lifetime if
:15:24. > :15:25.they or their spouse needs long-term care. Again, we have protected that
:15:26. > :15:35.in the proposals we set out. But the state will basically take a
:15:36. > :15:40.chunk of your house when you die and they sell. In an essence it is a
:15:41. > :15:44.stealth inheritance tax on everything above ?100,000. But we
:15:45. > :15:47.have those two important protections. I am including that. It
:15:48. > :15:52.is a stealth inheritance tax. We have to face up to the fact that
:15:53. > :15:57.there are significant costs that we face as a country in terms of health
:15:58. > :16:01.and social careful. Traditionally, politicians don't address those
:16:02. > :16:07.issues, particularly during election campaigns. I think it is too Theresa
:16:08. > :16:10.May's credit that we are being straightforward with the British
:16:11. > :16:13.people and saying that we face this long-term challenge. Our manifesto
:16:14. > :16:17.was about the big challenges that we face, one of which was
:16:18. > :16:21.intergenerational fairness and one of which was delivering a strong
:16:22. > :16:28.economy and making sure that we can do that. But in the end, someone is
:16:29. > :16:31.going to have to pay for this. It is going to have to be a balance
:16:32. > :16:34.between the general taxpayer and those receiving the services. We
:16:35. > :16:38.think we have struck the right balance with this proposal. But it
:16:39. > :16:42.is entirely on the individual. People watching this programme, if
:16:43. > :16:49.they have a fair amount of assets, not massive, including the home,
:16:50. > :16:53.they will need to pay for everything themselves until their assets are
:16:54. > :16:58.reduced to ?100,000. It is not a balance, you're putting everything
:16:59. > :17:04.on the original two individual. At the moment, for those in residential
:17:05. > :17:09.care, they have to pay everything until 20 3000. -- everything on the
:17:10. > :17:12.individual. But now they will face more. Those in individual care are
:17:13. > :17:16.seeing their protection going up by four times as much, so that is
:17:17. > :17:20.eliminating unfairness. Why should those in residential care be in a
:17:21. > :17:26.worse position than those receiving domiciliary care? But as I say, that
:17:27. > :17:29.money has to come from somewhere and we are sitting at a proper plan for
:17:30. > :17:33.it. While also made the point that we are more likely to be able to
:17:34. > :17:37.have a properly functioning social care market if we have a strong
:17:38. > :17:40.economy, and to have a strong economy we need to deliver a good
:17:41. > :17:45.deal on Brexit and I think Theresa May is capable of doing that. You
:17:46. > :17:49.have said that before. But if you have a heart attack in old age, the
:17:50. > :17:53.NHS will take care of you. If you have dementia, you now have to pay
:17:54. > :17:57.for the care of yourself. Is that they are? It is already the case
:17:58. > :18:02.that if you have long-term care costs come up as I say, if you are
:18:03. > :18:07.in residential care you pay for all of it until the last ?23,000, but if
:18:08. > :18:11.you are in domiciliary care, excluding your housing assets, but
:18:12. > :18:17.all of your other assets get used up until you are down to ?23,000 a
:18:18. > :18:24.year. And I think it is right at this point that a party that aspires
:18:25. > :18:27.to run this country for the long-term, to address the long-term
:18:28. > :18:32.challenges we have is a country, for us to be clear that we need to
:18:33. > :18:38.deliver this. Because if it is not paid for it this way, if it goes and
:18:39. > :18:42.falls on the general taxpayer, the people who feel hard pressed by the
:18:43. > :18:46.amount of income tax and VAT they pay, frankly we have to say to them,
:18:47. > :18:51.those taxes will go up if we do not address it. But they might go up
:18:52. > :18:57.anyway. The average house price in your part of the country is just shy
:18:58. > :19:01.of ?430,000, so if you told your own constituents that they might have to
:19:02. > :19:06.spend ?300,000 of their assets on social care before the state steps
:19:07. > :19:11.in to help...? As I said earlier, nobody will be forced to pay during
:19:12. > :19:17.their lifetime. Nobody will be forced to sell their houses. We are
:19:18. > :19:21.providing that protection because of the third premium. Which makes it a
:19:22. > :19:27.kind of death tax, doesn't it? Which is what you use to rail against.
:19:28. > :19:31.What it is people paying for the services they have paid out of their
:19:32. > :19:35.assets. But with that very important protection that nobody is going to
:19:36. > :19:40.be wiped out in the way that has happened up until now, down to the
:19:41. > :19:44.last three years. But when Labour propose this, George Osborne called
:19:45. > :19:48.it a death tax and you are now proposing a stealth death tax
:19:49. > :19:54.inheritance tax. Labour's proposals were very different. It is the same
:19:55. > :20:01.effect. Labour's were hitting everyone with an inheritance tax. We
:20:02. > :20:04.are saying that there are -- that there is a state contribution but
:20:05. > :20:10.the public receiving the services will have to pay for it out of
:20:11. > :20:14.assets, which have grown substantially. And which they might
:20:15. > :20:18.now lose to social care. But I would say that people in Hertfordshire pay
:20:19. > :20:23.a lot in income tracks, national insurance and VAT, and this is my
:20:24. > :20:27.bet is going to have to come from somewhere. Well, they are now going
:20:28. > :20:32.to pay a lot of tax and pay for social care. Turning to immigration,
:20:33. > :20:36.you promised to get net migration down to 100,020 ten. You failed. You
:20:37. > :20:41.promised again in 2015 and you are feeling again. Why should voters
:20:42. > :20:45.trust you a third time? It is very clear that only the Conservative
:20:46. > :20:51.Party has an ambition to control immigration and to bring it down. An
:20:52. > :20:54.ambition you have failed to deliver. There are, of course, factors that
:20:55. > :20:58.come into play. For example a couple of years ago we were going through a
:20:59. > :21:02.period when the UK was creating huge numbers of jobs but none of our
:21:03. > :21:05.European neighbours were doing anything like it. Not surprisingly,
:21:06. > :21:12.that feeds through into the immigration numbers that we see. But
:21:13. > :21:17.it is right that we have that ambition because I do not believe it
:21:18. > :21:21.is sustainable to have hundreds of thousands net migration, you're
:21:22. > :21:25.after year after year, and only Theresa May of the Conservative
:21:26. > :21:29.Party is willing to address that. It has gone from being a target to an
:21:30. > :21:33.ambition, and I am pretty sure in a couple of years it will become an
:21:34. > :21:39.untimed aspiration. Is net migration now higher or lower than when you
:21:40. > :21:44.came to power in 2010? I think it is higher at the moment. Let's look at
:21:45. > :21:49.the figures. And there they are. You are right, it is higher, so after
:21:50. > :21:56.six years in power, promising to get it down to 100,000, it is higher. So
:21:57. > :22:00.if that is an ambition and you have not succeeded. We have to accept
:22:01. > :22:05.that there are a number of factors. It continues to be the case that the
:22:06. > :22:08.UK economy is growing and creating a lot of jobs, which is undoubtedly
:22:09. > :22:12.drawing people. But you made the promise on the basis that would not
:22:13. > :22:15.happen? We are certainly outperforming other countries in a
:22:16. > :22:20.way that we could not have predicted in 2010. That is one of the factors.
:22:21. > :22:23.But if you look at a lot of the steps that we have taken over the
:22:24. > :22:29.course of the last seven years, dealing with bogus students, for
:22:30. > :22:33.example, tightening up a lot of the rules. You can say all that but it
:22:34. > :22:36.has made no difference to the headline figure. Clearly it would
:22:37. > :22:41.have gone up by much more and we not taken the steps. But as I say, we
:22:42. > :22:47.cannot for ever, it seems to me, have net migration numbers in the
:22:48. > :22:51.hundreds of thousands. If we get that good Brexit deal, one of the
:22:52. > :22:56.things we can do is tighten up in terms of access here. You say that
:22:57. > :23:00.but you have always had control of non-EU migration. You cannot blame
:23:01. > :23:03.the EU for that. You control immigration from outside the EU.
:23:04. > :23:10.Have you ever managed to get even that below 100,000? Well, no doubt
:23:11. > :23:16.you will present the numbers now. You haven't. You have got down a bit
:23:17. > :23:20.from 2010, I will give you that, but even non-EU migration is still a lot
:23:21. > :23:25.more than 100000 and that is the thing you control. It is 164,000 on
:23:26. > :23:28.the latest figures. There is no point in saying to the voters that
:23:29. > :23:31.when we get control of the EU migration you will get it down when
:23:32. > :23:37.the bit you have control over, you have failed to get that down into
:23:38. > :23:41.the tens of thousands. The general trend has gone up. Non-EU migration
:23:42. > :23:47.we have brought down over the last few years. Not by much, not by
:23:48. > :23:52.anywhere near your 100,000 target. But we clearly have more tools
:23:53. > :23:57.available to us, following Brexit. At this rate it will be around 2030
:23:58. > :24:00.before you get non-EU migration down to 100,000. We clearly have more
:24:01. > :24:04.tools available to us and I return to the point I made. In the last six
:24:05. > :24:08.or seven years, particularly the last four or five, we have seen the
:24:09. > :24:12.UK jobs market growing substantially. It is extraordinary
:24:13. > :24:15.how many more jobs we have. So you'll only promised the migration
:24:16. > :24:20.target because you did not think you were going to run the economy well?
:24:21. > :24:23.That is what you are telling me. I don't think anyone expected us to
:24:24. > :24:27.create quite a number of jobs that we have done over the last six or
:24:28. > :24:31.seven years. At the time when other European countries have not been.
:24:32. > :24:36.George Osborne says your target is economically illiterate. I disagree
:24:37. > :24:43.with George on that. He is my old boss but I disagree with him on that
:24:44. > :24:46.point. And the reason I say that is looking at the economics and the
:24:47. > :24:52.wider social impact, I don't think it is sustainable for us to have
:24:53. > :24:55.hundreds of thousands, year after year after year. Let me ask you one
:24:56. > :24:59.other thing because you are the chief secretary. Your promising that
:25:00. > :25:04.spending on health will be ?8 billion higher in five use time than
:25:05. > :25:07.it is now. How do you pay for that? From a strong economy, two years ago
:25:08. > :25:13.we had a similar conversation because at that point we said that
:25:14. > :25:17.we would increase spending by ?8 billion. And we are more than on
:25:18. > :25:21.track to deliver it, because it is a priority area for us. Where will the
:25:22. > :25:26.money come from? It will be a priority area for us. We will find
:25:27. > :25:31.the money. So you have not been able to show us a revenue line where this
:25:32. > :25:35.?8 billion will come from. We have a record of making promises to spend
:25:36. > :25:40.more on the NHS and delivering. One thing I would say is that the only
:25:41. > :25:45.way you can spend more money on the NHS is if you have a strong economy,
:25:46. > :25:49.and the biggest risk... But that is true of anything. I am trying to
:25:50. > :25:53.find out where the ?8 billion come from, where will it come from? Know
:25:54. > :25:57.you were saying that perhaps you might increase taxes, ticking off
:25:58. > :26:03.the lock, so people are right to be suspicious. But you will not tell us
:26:04. > :26:07.where the ?8 billion will come from. Andrew, a strong economy is key to
:26:08. > :26:11.delivering more NHS money. That does not tell us where the money is
:26:12. > :26:15.coming from. The biggest risk to a strong economy would be a bad
:26:16. > :26:20.Brexit, which Jeremy Corbyn would deliver. And we have a record of
:26:21. > :26:23.putting more money into the NHS. I think that past performance we can
:26:24. > :26:25.take forward. Thank you for joining us.
:26:26. > :26:27.So, the Conservatives have been taking a bit of flak
:26:28. > :26:31.But Conservative big guns have been out and about this morning taking
:26:32. > :26:35.Here's Boris Johnson on ITV's Peston programme earlier today:
:26:36. > :26:39.What we're trying to do is to address what I think
:26:40. > :26:42.everybody, all serious demographers acknowledge will be the massive
:26:43. > :26:46.problem of the cost of social care long-term.
:26:47. > :26:50.This is a responsible, grown-up, conservative approach,
:26:51. > :26:52.trying to deal with a long-term problem in a way that is equitable,
:26:53. > :26:55.allows people to pass on a very substantial sum,
:26:56. > :26:57.still, to their kids, and takes away the fear
:26:58. > :27:04.Joining me now from Liverpool is Labour's Shadow Chief Secretary
:27:05. > :27:15.Petered out, welcome to the programme. Let's start with social
:27:16. > :27:19.care. The Tories are saying that if you have ?100,000 or more in assets,
:27:20. > :27:24.you should pay for your own social care. What is wrong with that? Well,
:27:25. > :27:29.I think the issue at the end of the day is the question of fairness. Is
:27:30. > :27:33.it fair? And what we're trying to do is to get to a situation where we
:27:34. > :27:39.have, for example, the Dilnot report, which identified that you
:27:40. > :27:42.actually have cap on your spending on social care. We are trying to get
:27:43. > :27:48.to a position where it is a reasonable and fair approach to
:27:49. > :27:52.expenditure. But you will know that a lot of people, particularly in the
:27:53. > :27:57.south of country, London and the south-east, and the adjacent areas
:27:58. > :28:00.around it, they have benefited from huge house price inflation. They
:28:01. > :28:05.have seen their homes go up in value, if and when they sell, they
:28:06. > :28:11.are not taxed on that increase. Why should these people not pay for
:28:12. > :28:15.their own social care if they have the assets to do so? They will be
:28:16. > :28:20.paying for some of their social care but you cannot take social care and
:28:21. > :28:23.health care separately. It has to be an integrated approach. So for
:28:24. > :28:27.example if you do have dementia, you're more likely to be in an
:28:28. > :28:31.elderly person's home for longer and you most probably have been in care
:28:32. > :28:35.for a longer period of time. On the other hand, you might have, if you
:28:36. > :28:38.have had a stroke, there may be continuing care needs paid for by
:28:39. > :28:42.the NHS. So at the end of the date it is trying to get a reasonable
:28:43. > :28:51.balance and just to pluck a figure of ?100,000 out of thin air is not
:28:52. > :28:56.sensible. You will have heard me say about David Gold that the house
:28:57. > :29:00.prices in his area, about 450,000 or so, not quite that, and that people
:29:01. > :29:05.may have to spend quite a lot of that on social care to get down to
:29:06. > :29:09.?100,000. But in your area, the average house price is only
:29:10. > :29:15.?149,000, so your people would not have to pay anything like as much
:29:16. > :29:21.before they hit the ?100,000 minimum. I hesitate to say that but
:29:22. > :29:24.is that not almost a socialist approach to social care that if you
:29:25. > :29:29.are in the affluent Home Counties with a big asset, you pay more, and
:29:30. > :29:32.if you are in an area that is not so affluent and your house is not worth
:29:33. > :29:37.very much, you pay a lot less. What is wrong with that principle? I
:29:38. > :29:41.think the problem I am trying to get to is this issue about equity across
:29:42. > :29:47.the piece. At the end of the day, what we want is a system whereby it
:29:48. > :29:51.is capped at a particular level, and the Dilnot report, after much
:29:52. > :29:55.examination, said we should have a cap on care costs at ?72,000. The
:29:56. > :29:59.Conservatives decided to ditch that and come up with another policy
:30:00. > :30:03.which by all accounts seems to be even more Draconian. At the end of
:30:04. > :30:13.the day it is trying to get social care and an NHS care in a much more
:30:14. > :30:15.fluid way. We had offered the Conservatives to have a bipartisan
:30:16. > :30:20.approach to this. David just said that this is a long term. You do not
:30:21. > :30:26.pick a figure out of thin air and use that as a long-term strategy.
:30:27. > :30:31.The Conservatives are now saying they will increase health spending
:30:32. > :30:36.over the next five years in real terms. You will increase health
:30:37. > :30:42.spending. In what way is your approach to health spending better
:30:43. > :30:48.than the Tories' now? We are contributing an extra 7.2 billion to
:30:49. > :30:53.the NHS and social care over the next few years. But you just don't
:30:54. > :30:57.put money into the NHS or social care. It has to be an integrated
:30:58. > :31:02.approach to social and health care. What we've got is just more of the
:31:03. > :31:07.same. What we don't want to do is just say, we ring-fenced an out for
:31:08. > :31:16.here or there. What you have to do is try to get that... Let me ask you
:31:17. > :31:20.again. In terms of the amount of resource that is going to be devoted
:31:21. > :31:26.in the next five years, and resource does matter for the NHS, in what way
:31:27. > :31:30.are your plans different now from the Conservative plans? The key is
:31:31. > :31:36.how you use that resource. By just putting money in, you've got to say,
:31:37. > :31:42.if we are going to put that money on, how do we use it? As somebody
:31:43. > :31:46.who has worked in social care for 40 years, you have to have a different
:31:47. > :31:52.approach to how you use that money. The money we are putting in, 7.7,
:31:53. > :31:56.may be similar in cash terms to what the Tories claim they are putting
:31:57. > :32:10.in, but it's not how much you put in per se, it is how you use it. You
:32:11. > :32:12.are going to get rid of car parking charges in hospital, and you are
:32:13. > :32:15.going to increase pay by taking the cap on pay off. So it doesn't
:32:16. > :32:18.necessarily follow that the money, under your way of doing it, will
:32:19. > :32:22.follow the front line. What you need in the NHS is a system that is
:32:23. > :32:29.capable of dealing with the patience you have. What we have now is on at
:32:30. > :32:39.five Asian of the NHS. Staff leaving, not being paid properly. So
:32:40. > :32:42.pay and the NHS go hand in hand. Let's move onto another area of
:32:43. > :32:48.policy where there is some confusion. Who speaks for the Labour
:32:49. > :32:55.Party on nuclear weapons? Is it Emily Thornbury, or Nia Griffith,
:32:56. > :32:59.defence spokesperson? The Labour manifesto. It is clear. We are
:33:00. > :33:10.committed to the nuclear deterrent, and that is the definitive... Is it?
:33:11. > :33:14.Emily Thornbury said that Trident could be scrapped in the defence
:33:15. > :33:19.review you would have immediately after taking power. On LBC on Friday
:33:20. > :33:25.night. She didn't, actually. I listened to that. What she actually
:33:26. > :33:29.said is, as part of a Labour government coming in, a new
:33:30. > :33:34.government, there is always a defence review. But not the concept
:33:35. > :33:41.of Trident in its substance. She said there would be a review in
:33:42. > :33:45.terms of, and this is in our manifesto. When you reduce
:33:46. > :33:51.something, you review how it is operated. The review could scrap
:33:52. > :33:56.Trident. It won't scrap Trident. The review is in the context of how you
:33:57. > :34:02.protect it from cyber attacks. This will issue was seized upon that she
:34:03. > :34:07.was saying that we would have another review of Trident or Labour
:34:08. > :34:14.would ditch it. That is nonsense. You will have seen some reports that
:34:15. > :34:18.MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn in the early 90s because of his
:34:19. > :34:26.links to Irish republicanism. This has caused some people, his links to
:34:27. > :34:33.the IRA and Sinn Fein, it has caused some concern. Could you just listen
:34:34. > :34:40.to this clip and react. Do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn
:34:41. > :34:44.all bombing. But do you condemn what the IRA did? I condemn what was done
:34:45. > :34:49.with the British Army as well as both sides as well. What happened in
:34:50. > :34:56.Derry in 1972 was pretty devastating as well. Do you distinguish between
:34:57. > :35:02.state forces, what the British Army did and the IRA? Well, in a sense,
:35:03. > :35:07.the treatment of IRA prisoners which made them into virtual political
:35:08. > :35:12.prisoners suggested that the British government and the state saw some
:35:13. > :35:19.kind of almost equivalent in it. My point is that the whole violence if
:35:20. > :35:25.you was terrible, was appalling, and came out of a process that had been
:35:26. > :35:31.allowed to fester in Northern Ireland for a very long time. That
:35:32. > :35:35.was from about two years ago. Can you explain why the Leader of the
:35:36. > :35:39.Labour Party, Her Majesty 's opposition, the man who would be our
:35:40. > :35:46.next Prime Minister, finds it so hard to condemn IRA arming? I think
:35:47. > :35:49.it has to be within the context that Jeremy Corbyn for many years trying
:35:50. > :35:58.to move the peace protest... Process along. So why wouldn't you condemn
:35:59. > :36:05.IRA bombing? Again, that was an issue, a traumatic event in Irish -
:36:06. > :36:11.British relations that went on for 30 years. It is a complicated
:36:12. > :36:16.matter. Bombing is not that complicated. If you are a man of
:36:17. > :36:20.peace, surely you would condemn the bomb and the bullet? Let me say
:36:21. > :36:26.this, I condemn the bomb and the bullet. Why can't your leader? You
:36:27. > :36:31.would have to ask Jeremy Corbyn, but that is in the context of what he
:36:32. > :36:32.was trying to do over a 25 year period to move the priest process
:36:33. > :36:36.along. Thank you for joining us. It's just gone 11.35,
:36:37. > :36:38.you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers
:36:39. > :59:42.in Scotland and Wales. We say goodbye to viewers
:59:43. > :59:43.cancelled. And rent to own is still our policy. Thank you very much, Tom
:59:44. > :59:50.Brake. Andrew, back to you. So, two and half weeks
:59:51. > :59:53.to go till polling day, let's take stock of the campaign
:59:54. > :59:55.so far and look ahead Sam, Isabel and Steve
:59:56. > :00:09.are with me again. Sam, Mrs May had made a great thing
:00:10. > :00:13.about the just about managing. Not the poorest of the poor, but not
:00:14. > :00:20.really affluent people, who are maybe OK but it's a bit of a
:00:21. > :00:24.struggle. What is in the manifesto for them? There is something about
:00:25. > :00:28.the high profile items in the manifesto. She said she wants to
:00:29. > :00:33.help those just above the poorest level. But if you look at things
:00:34. > :00:38.like the winter fuel allowance, which is going to be given only to
:00:39. > :00:43.the poorest. If you look at free school meals for infants, those for
:00:44. > :00:48.the poorest are going to be kept, but the rest will go. The social
:00:49. > :00:54.care plan, those who are renting or in properties worth up to ?90,000,
:00:55. > :01:01.they are going to be treated, but those in properties worth above
:01:02. > :01:06.that, 250,000, for example, will have to pay. Which leads to the
:01:07. > :01:11.question - what is being done for the just about managings? There is
:01:12. > :01:15.something, the personal allowance that David Cameron promised in 2015,
:01:16. > :01:22.that they are not making a big deal of that, because they cannot say by
:01:23. > :01:29.how much. So you are looking in tax rises on the just about managings.
:01:30. > :01:38.Where will the tax rises come from. We do not know, that there is the 40
:01:39. > :01:41.million pounds gap for the Tories to reach what they are pledging in
:01:42. > :01:48.their manifesto. We do not know how that is going to be made up, more
:01:49. > :01:51.tax, or more borrowing? So that is why the questions of the
:01:52. > :01:56.implications of removing the tax lock are so potentially difficult
:01:57. > :01:59.for Tory MPs. The Labour manifesto gives figures for the cost of
:02:00. > :02:03.certain policies and where the revenue will come from. You can
:02:04. > :02:08.argue about the figures, but at least we have the figures. The Tory
:02:09. > :02:13.manifesto is opaque on these matters. That applies to both the
:02:14. > :02:17.manifestos. Looking at the Labour manifesto on the way here this
:02:18. > :02:21.morning, when you look at the section on care for the elderly,
:02:22. > :02:26.they simply say, there are various ways in which the money for this can
:02:27. > :02:32.be raised. They are specific on other things. They are, and we heard
:02:33. > :02:39.John McDonnell this morning being very on that, and saying there is
:02:40. > :02:46.not a single ? in Tory manifesto. I have only got to page 66. It is
:02:47. > :02:51.quite broad brush and they are very open to challenge. For example, on
:02:52. > :02:56.the detail of a number of their flagship things. There is no detail
:02:57. > :03:01.on their immigration policy. They reiterate the ambition, but not how
:03:02. > :03:07.they are going to do that, without a massive increase in resource for
:03:08. > :03:13.Borders officials. We are at a time where average wages are lagging
:03:14. > :03:18.behind prices. And in work benefits remain frozen. I would have thought
:03:19. > :03:23.that the just-about-managings are people who are in work but they need
:03:24. > :03:28.some in work benefits to make life tolerable and be able to pay bills.
:03:29. > :03:36.Doesn't she has to do more for them? Maybe, but this whole manifesto was
:03:37. > :03:43.her inner circle saying, right, this is our chance to express our... It
:03:44. > :03:48.partly reads like a sort of philosophical essay at times. About
:03:49. > :03:52.the challenges, individualism against collectivism. Some of it
:03:53. > :03:58.reads quite well and is quite interesting, but in terms of its
:03:59. > :04:02.detail, Labour would never get away with it. They wouldn't be allowed to
:04:03. > :04:07.be so vague about where taxes are going to rise. We know there are
:04:08. > :04:12.going to be tax rises after the election, but we don't know where
:04:13. > :04:19.they will be. 100%, there will be tax rises. We know that they wanted
:04:20. > :04:25.a tax rise in the last budget, but they couldn't get it through because
:04:26. > :04:29.of the 2015 manifesto. Labour do offer a lot more detail. People
:04:30. > :04:36.could disagree with it, but there is a lot more detail. More to get your
:04:37. > :04:41.teeth into. About capital gains tax and the rises for better owners and
:04:42. > :04:48.so on. The SNP manifesto comes out this week, and the Greens and Sinn
:04:49. > :04:51.Fein. We think Ukip as well. There are more manifestos to come. The Lib
:04:52. > :04:58.Dems have already brought theirs out. Isn't the Liberal Democrat
:04:59. > :05:04.campaign in trouble? It doesn't seem to be doing particular the well in
:05:05. > :05:07.the polls, or at the local elections a few weeks ago. The Liberal
:05:08. > :05:13.Democrats are trying to fish in quite a small pool for votes. They
:05:14. > :05:18.are looking to get votes from those remainers who want to reverse the
:05:19. > :05:23.result, in effect. Tim Farron is promising a second referendum on the
:05:24. > :05:31.deal at the end of the negotiation process. And that is a hard sell. So
:05:32. > :05:37.those voting for remain on June 23 are not low hanging fruit by any
:05:38. > :05:42.means? Polls suggesting that half of those want to reverse the result, so
:05:43. > :05:46.that is a feeling of about 20% on the Lib Dems, and they are getting
:05:47. > :05:51.slightly less than half at the moment, but there are not a huge
:05:52. > :05:59.amount of votes for them to get on that strategy. It doesn't feel like
:06:00. > :06:04.Tim Farron and the Lib Dems have promised enough. They are making a
:06:05. > :06:08.very serious case on cannabis use in a nightclub, but the optics of what
:06:09. > :06:11.they are discussing doesn't make them look like an anchor in a future
:06:12. > :06:16.coalition government that they would need to be. I wonder if we are
:06:17. > :06:21.seeing the re-emergence of the 2-party system? And it is not the
:06:22. > :06:25.same two parties. In Scotland, the dynamics of this election seemed to
:06:26. > :06:27.be the Nationalists against the Conservatives. In England, if you
:06:28. > :06:45.look at what has happened to be Ukip vote, and what Sam was saying about
:06:46. > :06:46.the Lib Dems are struggling a bit to get some traction, it is
:06:47. > :06:48.overwhelmingly Labour and the Conservatives. A different 2-party
:06:49. > :06:51.system from Scotland, but a 2-party system. There are a number of
:06:52. > :06:56.different election is going on in parallel. In Scotland it is about
:06:57. > :07:00.whether you are unionist or not. Here, we have the collapse of the
:07:01. > :07:06.Ukip vote, which looks as though it is being redistributed in the
:07:07. > :07:12.Tories' favour. This is a unique election, and will not necessarily
:07:13. > :07:15.set the trend for elections to come. In the Tory manifesto, I spotted the
:07:16. > :07:24.fact that the fixed term Parliament act is going to be scrapped. That
:07:25. > :07:28.got almost no coverage! It turned out to be academic anyway, that it
:07:29. > :07:32.tells you something about how Theresa May is feeling, and she
:07:33. > :07:37.wants the control to call an election whenever it suits her.
:07:38. > :07:46.Re-emergence of the 2-party system, for this election or beyond? For
:07:47. > :07:50.this election, yes, but it shows the sort of robust strength of parties
:07:51. > :07:55.and their fragility. In other words, the Lib Dems haven't really
:07:56. > :07:59.recovered from the losses in the last general election, and are
:08:00. > :08:03.therefore not really seen as a robust vehicle to deliver Remain. If
:08:04. > :08:08.they were, they might be doing better. The Labour Party hasn't
:08:09. > :08:13.recovered in Scotland, and yet, if you look at the basic divide in
:08:14. > :08:18.England and Scotland and you see two parties battling it out, it is very,
:08:19. > :08:23.very hard for the smaller parties to break through and last. Many appear
:08:24. > :08:29.briefly on the political stage and then disappear again. The election
:08:30. > :08:34.had the ostensible goal of Brexit, but we haven't heard much about it
:08:35. > :08:40.in the campaign. Perhaps the Tories want to get back onto that. David
:08:41. > :08:44.Davis sounding quite tough this morning, the Brexit minister, saying
:08:45. > :08:48.there is no chance we will talk about 100 billion. And we have to
:08:49. > :08:54.have power in the negotiations on the free trade deal or what ever it
:08:55. > :08:58.is. I think they are keen to get the subject of the manifesto at this
:08:59. > :09:03.point, because it has not started too well. There is an irony that
:09:04. > :09:08.Theresa May ostensibly called the election because she needed a
:09:09. > :09:11.stronger hand in the Brexit negotiations, and there was an
:09:12. > :09:14.opportunity for the Lib Dems, with their unique offer of being the
:09:15. > :09:20.party that is absolutely against the outcome of the referendum, and
:09:21. > :09:25.offering another chance. There hasn't been much airtime on that
:09:26. > :09:31.particular pledge, because instead, this election has segued into being
:09:32. > :09:35.all about leadership. Theresa May's leadership, and looking again at the
:09:36. > :09:43.Tory manifesto, I was struck that she was saying that this is my plan
:09:44. > :09:49.for the future, not ABBA plan. Even when talking about social care, he
:09:50. > :09:53.manages to work in a bit about Theresa May and Brexit. And Boris
:09:54. > :09:58.Johnson this morning, an interview he gave on another political
:09:59. > :10:02.programme this morning, it was extraordinarily sycophantic for him.
:10:03. > :10:09.Isn't Theresa May wonderful. There is a man trying to secure his job in
:10:10. > :10:15.the Foreign Office! Will he succeed? I think she will leave him. Better
:10:16. > :10:21.in the tent than out. What did you make of David Davis' remarks? He was
:10:22. > :10:27.basically saying, we will walk away from the negotiating table if the
:10:28. > :10:35.Europeans slam a bill for 100 billion euros. The point is that the
:10:36. > :10:39.Europeans will not slam a bill for 100 billion euros on the negotiating
:10:40. > :10:44.table. That is the gross figure. There are all sorts of things that
:10:45. > :10:49.need to be taken into account. I imagine they will ask for something
:10:50. > :10:56.around the 50 or ?60 billion mark. It looks that they are trying to
:10:57. > :10:59.make it look like a concession when they do make their demands in order
:11:00. > :11:04.to soften the ground for what is going to happen just two weeks after
:11:05. > :11:08.general election day. He makes a reasonable point about having
:11:09. > :11:12.parallel talks. What they want to do straightaway is deal with the bill,
:11:13. > :11:17.Northern Ireland and citizens rights. All of those things are very
:11:18. > :11:20.complicated and interlinked issues, which cannot be dealt with in
:11:21. > :11:26.isolation. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with parallel talks,
:11:27. > :11:32.just to work out where we are going with Northern Ireland and the
:11:33. > :11:36.border. Steve, you can't work out what the Northern Ireland border
:11:37. > :11:41.will be, and EU citizens' writes here, until you work out what our
:11:42. > :11:45.relationship with the EU in the future will be. Indeed. The British
:11:46. > :11:50.government is under pressure to deal quickly with the border issue in
:11:51. > :11:55.Ireland, but feel they can't do so because when you have a tariff free
:11:56. > :11:58.arrangement outcome, or an arrangement that is much more
:11:59. > :12:03.protectionist, and that will determine partly the nature of the
:12:04. > :12:06.border. You cannot have a quick agreement on that front without
:12:07. > :12:10.knowing the rest of the deal. I think the negotiation will be
:12:11. > :12:15.complex. I am certain they want a deal rather than none, because this
:12:16. > :12:21.is no deal thing is part of the negotiation at this early stage.
:12:22. > :12:24.Sounding tough in the general election campaign also works
:12:25. > :12:32.electorally. But after the election, it will be a tough negotiation,
:12:33. > :12:35.beginning with this cost of Brexit. My understanding is that the
:12:36. > :12:40.government feels it's got to make the Europeans think they will not do
:12:41. > :12:45.a deal in order to get a deal. They don't want no deal. Absolutely not.
:12:46. > :12:48.And I'm sure it plays into the election. I'm sure the rhetoric will
:12:49. > :12:53.change when the election is over. That's all for today,
:12:54. > :12:55.thank you to all my guests. The Daily Politics will be
:12:56. > :12:58.back on BBC Two at 12.00 And tomorrow evening I will be
:12:59. > :13:01.starting my series of interviews with the party leaders -
:13:02. > :13:04.first up is the Prime Minister, Theresa May,
:13:05. > :13:06.that's at 7pm on BBC One. And I'll be back here at the same
:13:07. > :13:09.time on BBC One next Sunday. Remember - if it's Sunday,
:13:10. > :13:58.it's the Sunday Politics. We've made great strides
:13:59. > :14:00.tackling HIV. Imagine if we could
:14:01. > :14:03.create a movement