21/05/2017 Sunday Politics

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?

at the opposite ends of the Brexit spectrum.

We're looking at the policies and chances of the Liberal Democrats

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. We say goodbye to viewers

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. We've made great strides

tackling HIV. Imagine if we could

create a movement