21/05/2017 The Andrew Marr Show

There always comes a moment in a general election campaign

when the party that's ahead has a major wobble -

polls tighten and commentators get over-excited as voters

home in on one particularly controversial issue -

such as, for instance, how we treat pensioners.

Here, to defend a manifesto that has surprised and worried

some traditional Tory voters, the Work and Pensions

Secretary Damian Green and - back with us again -

the Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell,

facing questions about Labour's plans for welfare cuts.

Later on, they'll be going head to head on the sofa.

Plus, a question for its leader this morning: in the 2017 general

And a reminder even now that there's more that unites

us than divides us - Brendan Cox on his wife's legacy,

as we approach the anniversary of her death.

And reviewing the news from the papers and beyond this

morning, the Corbyn-supporting commentator, Paul Mason,

Miranda Green from the FT and the Daily Mail's Amanda Platell.

But first, the news with Roger Johnson.

Donald Trump will today call on Muslims to present

a united front in the fight against religious extremism.

The President is on the second day of a visit to Saudi Arabia

during which he signed an arms deal worth more than ?80 billion.

Later today, he will address the leaders of 50 Muslim majority

countries, describing the fight against terrorism as

The New York Times is reporting that at least 18 CIA informants

were killed or imprisoned in China after a spy network was dismantled.

It's being described as one of the worst intelligence

The Labour Party is stepping up its drive for older voters,

claiming Conservative manifesto proposals amount

Jeremy Corbyn said his party will protect the Winter Fuel Allowance

and Triple-Lock on state pensions, which will both be reduced under

The Tories have accused Labour of running a "scare campaign".

The leaders of the main parties have agreed to stop campaigning

for an hour today to remember the MP Jo Cox, who was shot

and stabbed in her constituency in West Yorkshire last year.

Her widower Brendan Cox suggested the idea to encourage

Earlier this year, Mr Cox met the Duchess of Cornwall to launch

a plan for a "great get together" to commemorate the anniversary

Pippa Middleton has tied the knot in a ceremony

The 33-year-old socialite married James Matthews,

a hedge fund manager, at St Mark's Church in Englefield.

The wedding was attended by celebrity friends and royals,

including her sister, the Duchess of Cambridge, Prince George

The story on the front pages is all about Pippa and politics. An

interview in the Sunday Telegraph with Theresa May, where her best

idea is to focus on local heroes rather than overpaid TV celebrities.

The Sunday Express, Pippa. The Mail on Sunday, Pippa and politics. And

Pippa, and Pippa, pages and pages of her inside. And in the Observer,

again, more politics, on the school meals plan. Lots to talk about. I

suspect we will talk more about politics than Pippa. You are quite

right. It was a very wobbly weekend for Theresa May and the Tories.

Jeremy Corbyn must have thought, hallelujah, when he heard the

manifesto. There is only a nine point difference in the polls. And

that is the crucial thing. In the Sunday Times, 44 to 35. It is still

a very good lead. The most important thing here really is, did she do

this, was this a mistake or was it intentional? Did she think that she

could afford to lose some? I am really principled Prime Minister.

Who knows? We agree that the essence of the problem is what she said

about social care, pensioners and the Winter fuel payments? I think

the social care plan, certainly, and the tax on the elderly, as many of

the papers have it today. It would be called a brave suggestion. It is

brave, because there is a really big national problem, and here is an

answer to it, even though people might not like it. Yes, and I think

there is a genuine political reason for having such a risky manifesto

which is, even if they win big in the Commons, the Tories don't

control the House of Lords. The tradition is that you don't block

measures that are in a manifesto. So this is to have more power later on,

if she takes a hit now? Fewer MPs gives had less power. There were

interesting quotes in that story in the Sunday Times, saying that we

need to get the question off the manifesto. Before we move to Paul,

the interview in the Telegraph, how much does it tell us? No disrespect

to the Telegraph, when I say that there is very little in it. She is

the mistress of saying nothing in her interviews. This is the Lynton

Crosby method to win an election. Have one slogan, one idea, and stick

to it. No deviation, lots of repetition. But unfortunately it has

disrupted the election. Is the idea to move the story on from social

care? It hasn't worked very well in terms of the front pages. The

dementia tax backlash. Do you think the world dementia tax might play,

we are discussing? Theresa May stood up twice in Downing Street and said,

this election is about Brexit and Brexit only. To Labour voters in

Yorkshire, just lend me your vote on Brexit, and everything else will be

more or less the same. Every family in the land wakes up wondering

whether the asset wealth, that has been assembled over many generations

by middle class and working class families, is now in peril because of

a solution pulled out of nowhere precisely opposite by the guy

employed by the government to go up on. If you are in a Labour

constituency in the North of England in a house worth less than ?100,000,

this is very good news for you, because you don't have to pay a

penny. Yes, but the problem is, it is about Universalism versus you are

on your own. The message from this one, and from almost every policy

the Tories presented in that manifesto, was a reversal out of

Cameron is. Cameron and Osborne did try to spread the load between the

classes of spreading the cost of the elderly. Now it is a saying, you are

on your own. It is anti-universal, which is a theme that is already

provoking a backlash on the doorsteps. Last Sunday, when I was

campaigning, nobody wants to talk about Brexit already. They just want

to talk about what the future is for them and their kids. I found that

quite shocking. This Sunday, we know what they are going to be talking

about. And we have to remind ourselves, that at the last election

in 2015, the Conservatives were talking about the deal not proposal,

which was a cap on social care of ?72,000, and the rest was pooled

between everybody. Now they are talking about a flaw of 100,000,

which is not very much, especially in the south of England. If they

stick to this policy, and there is a question of whether they will be

able to, is whether they will have to raise that 100,000 after the

election. It is so complex that it is an open door to Labour for the

dementia problem. It is a big problem three days away from

polling. Let's move to the other side of the fence, to Jeremy Corbyn

in the Daily Mirror. It is interesting because a lot of people

are saying he may now be, he is much more aggressive, a full frontal

attack on Theresa May. He is saying that you are taking away the winter

fuel allowance, which could lead to deaths. Theresa May is just being

nasty, basically. It is now full on. She is still the nasty party. He is

clearly a man who visibly doesn't enjoy running the Labour Party as a

mechanism. He loves campaigning, he is in his element. It's interesting

that around the country we are seeing lots of examples of big,

enthusiastic crowds. They don't appear on the traditional media very

much. We are going to show you one, and Labour Party video from Tranmere

Rovers. It is a music festival, I think.

Thank you for giving me a few minutes.

A bit surreal. Does it make any real difference to the polls? A lot of

excitement this weekend, but the polls are still suggesting a very

large Tory majority, and a lot of people out there, not at the

Tranmere ground singing hello, Jeremy Corbyn, don't like it. Many

people who support Labour naturally are being feeling treated unfair.

British people are quite fair. It's something that defines us as a

nation, that we don't like people being bullied and kicked unfairly,

which is what happened to Corbyn in the media. I'm not surprised by

that. I move among people who would have been in that crowd. But a lot

of media people don't. I think they will have been shocked by that,

because it was an unplanned meeting. Corbyn had just been on West Kirby

beach with a crowd that was so long that he couldn't see the back of it.

That doesn't win you an election, but it gives people on the doorstep

the confidence to understand that we are not a bunch of threats to

national security, as all these threats would have it, we are just

the ordinary core of the British working population. You have to

remember that one of the papers that did put his manifesto on the front

page was the Daily Mirror. So it's not just the right wing papers. This

article in the Observer about media bias is a bit of a non-Damascene

conversion from a newspaper that just does not like Jeremy Corbyn.

When all the newspapers are owned by alien heirs who don't pay tax, it is

the unfairness of the attack on him. I think you have been looking at the

Sunday Telegraph. To stay on the Labour Party, this is a column about

some of these whisperings that Tony Blair might be gathering together,

behind-the-scenes, money and supporters, for something to happen

after polling day. It's the idea that the moderates in the Labour

Party might want to either split away or organise internally for any

sort of leadership election that might come up. It's a reminder that

after polling day, the turmoil in the opposition will not go away.

Keep watching, everybody! That is partly because the Conservatives, if

they win again, have a very, very difficult job immediately on

negotiating Brexit. There are two very different interviews in terms

of tone today. One interview, one column. David Davis, the Brexit

secretary, is giving a tough interview in the Observer. He is

saying, if they demand a huge 100 billion divorce bill, he is getting

up and walking out. I love the picture on it. He looks like he's

ready for a fight. So he is being extremely tough, but interestingly,

a very different tone in an article by Boris Johnson in the Mail on

Sunday, in which she attacks Jeremy Corbyn for being a blancmange. Not

his best metaphor. He also says, we want a very good deal with our

European friends. He sounds much more in moly end. Whether the

government goes a bit more Boris or a bit more David Davis, it is a real

question... Also, interestingly, going back to the conversation about

the election, David Davis is trying to get them back on message with all

of this Brexit being the defining issue, which they seem to have

forgotten that the last few days. It's much better for the

Conservative Party to be back on that. The words we have not

mentioned so far is Liberal Democrat. What has happened to the

great Lib Dem revival? Some are saying it will be their year. So

far, they are known in the polls and falling. Tim Farren, in the Mail on

Sunday, getting very angry. It has been the most binary election for

some time. What normally happens to the Lib Dems is boosting coverage

and a squeeze in the last few days. All they are having at the moment is

a squeeze. This decision to go completely on Brexit has not worked

well for them. Interestingly, this interview with Tim Farron is

following up on the great opportunity provided by the Tory

manifesto. Presenting Theresa May as uncaring.

The reason we have asked Paul on the sofa is to talk about the royal

wedding. Eight pages in the Sun, eight in the mail, a lot in the

mirror. A young member of the Royal family there with an outfit and

every working-class person in Britain will understand. When people

talk about certain politicians taking us back to the past, this,

I'm afraid, it is Downton Abbey, replayed with real people. But

everyone loves Downton Abbey. No, I love this, eight pages of the kind

of people who will be paying 8p more on their tax when Labour get into

power. And by the look of it, they can afford it. It is just

incredible. She is the sister of a royal, she is not a royal in herself

but I guess there is president of this because Diana's brother sold

his wedding rights. It is not about the pages in the paper but the pages

in between. And it cheers people up, and everyone likes a wedding. Cute

kids. I am glad you are all cheered up.

The husband of the murdered MP Jo Cox is urging politicians

to pause their election campaigning for an hour today

to remember her, and to help bring communities together.

Welcome, Brendan. First of all, what exactly do you want to happen today?

What is happening today, politicians from all political parties are

taking an hour out of campaigning to pause and generally go and visit

community groups, whether that is the Women's Institute or the Rotary

Club or the scouts or the guides, organisations who we get in, week

out, spend their time bringing the community together. Obviously

election campaigns are divisive necessarily and the focus on the

areas where we disagree with one another but the fact that all the

party leaders have responded to say that they will pause for a second

and say, of course we fundamentally disagree with each other on of

things but there is more that unites us than divides us, I think that is

a really important signal. And you have had a good response from the

party leaders? We have had an incredible response. There a

beautiful event happening in Jo's home town, the candidates are

getting together to raise money for a special baby unit. It is those

sorts of things which I think, politics is massively important and

elections are very important for our country, but we also have to get a

better balance. We spend so much time talking about the things we

disagree with each other on, particularly during elections, and

we are very bad at actually just pausing for a second and focusing on

those fundamental things that bind us together. And after this moment,

something else that you have talked about with others, the great

get-together. What is that? It happens on the weekend of the

anniversary of Jo's death, the 16th, 17th and 18th of June. The basic

idea is that we are asking people to get together with their neighbours

and share food, celebrating what we have in common. In thinking about

how I marked the anniversary of Jo's death, I wanted it to reflect who

she was, someone with great energy and enthusiasm for life. I didn't

want it to be mournful. Also, it felt like the person that killed Jo

was trying to divide communities and I can think of no better response

than the anniversary bringing communities together. And you and

the children will have a very busy and in some ways slightly traumatic

few weeks going through all of this process. How are you coping? For us

as a family, this is something that goes on and on. Individual days can

be better or worse, it is not just the big moments. But the kids are

here today and they are incredibly excited about the big get-together.

They love planning a party and they know that their mum would have loved

it. They will get a great breakfast after it. That is how we got them

out of bed this morning. I think in terms of BBC impartiality I am still

allowed to say good luck with all of that, Brendan Cox. Thanks.

The Weather gods are angry about all this over-heated nonsense

being talked in this election campaign, and they have punished

London and the South in particular with short blasts of icy rain.

But if their intention was to cool us down, it hasn't worked.

Philip Avery is in the weather studio with more.

If this was an interview, I would probably pick you up on the use of

the word I see but I know what you mean. It has not been as warm as it

might be. Although we are starting in a better vein on the western side

of the British Isles. And even this dollar picture from the borders of

Scotland is an improvement on what we had yesterday. Overnight we got

rid of the persistent rain in the North of Scotland. And you weather

feature spreading cloud and rain across Northern Ireland and

eventually into the northern side of Scotland. Perhaps a little cloud

producing the odd spot but nothing to write home about. A much improved

situation on yesterday but you can see on the bigger picture there that

there is a lot of fine weather to be had. The top temperature on the

roundabout somewhere between London and Cambridge, 21, possibly 22, but

the sun is strong at this time of year. Bear that in mind if you are

spending some time out of this afternoon, that it could well burn

you. No great problems with frost this evening or overnight, we are

importing milder air from the continent. Monday, another sparkling

day for many, although a new weather front will make its way from

Northern Ireland into central and western parts of Scotland.

Elsewhere, increasingly warm, I would thought, and the temperatures

at this stage could well be pushing towards 24 or 25 degrees or so. It

works to the wise, as we move on into the forthcoming week, this high

pressure will deliver stable, I don't know about strong weather but

increasingly warm weather and Andrew, I offer that prospect to the

many, not the few. Whoever said you don't get good news

on television these days? It's weird, but the 2015

election now seems a lot Which party surprised

the pundits and came third? As I say, it seems a long time ago,

and Ukip's current leader, A simple question, today, what is

the point of Ukip? Well, we're going into the selection with clear water

between ourselves and the other political parties. We are the only

party committed to cutting foreign aid and putting that money into the

NHS and social care. We're the only party truly committed to cutting

immigration and we have to be the guard dogs of Brexit because I fear

that once this election is over and Theresa May comes back with a

whopping majority that she will begin to backslide and that is why

it is important that Ukip is there to ensure we get that we voted for

on June 23. Clearly, you had a terrible night on the local

elections, losing every one but one of the council seats you were

defending. You have no MPs, few Welsh Assembly members left and that

is about it. You are down to 2% in one of the polls today, Paddy Lowe

indeed. And the factor of your party has basically said that you should

wind it up. I'm sure he would have said that because he seems to say

that about every single election. We knew that those local elections were

always going to be the most difficult that we have ever fought.

They were made stubbornly difficult by the fact that Theresa May called

the general election so they were fought on national issues but

however Ukip has a great future and I predict that after the selection

Ukip could be bigger than it has ever been before because if she

begins the backslide, and I think that she will, and I think there

will be our deal on freedom of movement and there will be a divorce

bill. People did not vote on that last year. Let's come to some of

those issues directly. You say you were going to hold her feet to the

fire and be guard dogs over Brexit, how can you be guard dogs without

MPs? It does not matter how many MPs you have. If you think back to 2013,

we fought the British Prime Minister David Cameron into offering a

referendum he never wanted to give, but we did not have an MP at that

time. Ukip needs to be elect Aurelia vital goal -- electorally viable, it

needs to do well in the local elections, and I believe we will do

very well indeed. You have said that you were going to get into double

figures with MPs. Can you look me in the eye and tell me that is going to

happen? I was in Dagenham in Clacton yesterday, or we are strong, and we

are still strong. Will you window seats? There is a good chance that

we will. -- will you win those seats. We are campaigning and there

response is great. Your immigration policy is in effect, one in, one

out, is that right? It is balanced migration. It basically boils down

to the fact that we have a population problem in this country

and if we continue to allow a city the size of Newcastle upon Tyne to

come in every year, as we are doing at the moment, it is Birmingham

every three years, we will have a population of 80 million by the

middle of the century and that is not sustainable. So a very dramatic

change from the situation are in now. At the time of the referendum

campaign, I remember Nigel Farage saying that this was good news for

the new Commonwealth countries, because we were going to stop taking

in the Europeans. Let me give you an example of why under your policy,

there would be a problem. A Bangladeshi family like Family

Reunion is and they want to bring their auntie is over. Under that

policy -- under your policy, that would effectively be impossible. No.

If you have skills we require, we will have an Australian style points

system, you can come over here and work with the Visa. Just as it is in

Canada and the United States. Because of the moment we cannot

continue on the road we are on. The other political parties want to turn

away. When I brought this up at a debate the other night, the Green

Party, Plaid Cymru and the SNP, they laughed at me. We are the only party

with a sensible policy to reduce the numbers. Part of the reason they

want more immigration is that they look at the condition of the British

economy at the moment and it relies on migrant labour coming into this

country. The Office for Budget Responsibility as catalytic that if

we cut immigration to 185,000, vastly more than you are suggesting,

that would cost the Treasury ?6 billion a year in lost revenue. How

much will your policy cost the Treasury? At the moment we are

allowing in about 360,000. We are saying that we want to reduce that

figure to zero. There will still be people coming into the country. It

is not as if we are going to put up the drawbridge in any way, shape or

form. What we are going to do, this is going to be done over five years.

So it needs a lot of wriggle room and we need people to come into the

country. They can come in and they can work. But economic isn't

everything, it is also about social cohesion and at the moment, we have

communities which have been tipped upside down over recent years

because too many people are coming into the country too quickly, not

learning English and not integrating. So what is your message

to that Bangladeshi family? Is it that actually you can have your

Family Reunion but you are better off to do it in Bangladesh than

London? That will be tapered into our immigration policy and we have

our manifesto launched on Wednesday. You can come back and interview me

on that issue in a couple of weeks, but I will say that somebody has to

get immigration under control because at this present moment in

time, we are allowing too many people to come into the country.

There was a recent report in recent years by Trevor Phillips, showing

that integration is getting worse in this country, not better, and it is

down to the amount of people that are coming in. Do you think you have

taken the issue of Ukip at just the wrong time. Everybody was in the bar

knocking back pints and all the rest of it but Nigel Farage, and now it

is your turn and you have got up to buy your round and U-turning -- and

you turn your back and everyone has scarpered. I am leading Ukip at a

different time. When we had Nigel Farage, we had David Cameron who did

not want to leave the union. Now we have Theresa May walking the walk --

document that, but when push comes to shove, will she walk the walk?

The narrative in this election is that Theresa May is

hyper-cautious and shies away from any risk.

Odd then, that the Conservative manifesto contained so much

challenging news for the one group above all others

that actually votes - pensioners.

The Work and Pensions Secretary, Damian Green, is with me.

Damian Green, welcome. Thank you for coming in. Do you recognise this

document? I do. Who produced it? The Conservative Party. And what does it

contain? It contains detailed costing of the week that Labour

approach any problem, which is to say there is a magic money tree, and

we just need to take money off businesses and people and that will

solve problems. But you and I remember the 1970s. You would agree

that this is a very detailed costing. It exposes the Labour

manifesto for being just a Charente. There is another document. Why does

this have no detailed costing at all? Why is this an arm cost of

document? Because the difference between the Conservative Party and

the Labour Party is that we produce realistic policies to deal with the

real problems in this country, some of which raise money. Is that not

double standards? No. Some of our pledges are to spend less money or

move money around, so it is spent in the right places. It is spent

supporting people, not just saying that the only solution is more money

and we will do that by taxing British business. You were talking

about this overexcited weekend that we're having at the moment. I think

this will focus people's minds on the fact that in less than a month's

time, Jeremy Corbyn could be leading Brexit negotiations, and given

Labour's complete lack of credibility, their nonsensical

economic policy as well as their own policies, nobody really wants that.

They have given us quite detailed accounts of how much tax they would

raise and from whom. Let me talk about the black holes in your

manifesto. You say you are going to pay another ?8 billion on the NHS.

Where is that money going to come from? We produced a budget a few

months ago, so all the detailed costings for Conservative policies

are already there. This is extra money for the NHS. I'm just asking

you where it comes from. Extra taxes, extra borrowing or cuts

somewhere else? A lot of it is read targeted money from within the

system, because we know we can do things better. It's how we can

promise more on mental health, for instance. From various parts of the

NHS and other parts of the public sector, for example. One of the

things you were talking about earlier, social care. Last week, it

would it was said that there was going to be an extra ?1 billion for

the Armed Forces. Where is that going to come from? We are going to

target winter fuel allowance on those who really need them, and the

money we save from that can be targeted to the health and social

care system. That seems to as a sensible way of dealing with one of

the big issues facing the country. How much money will you raise from

cutting winter fuel payments? We said we would consult on that. We

know it costs about ?2 billion. We will see, because we haven't set

the... It is an uncosted, black hole document. It is not an cost it. We

are saying that the money we save on the winter fuel payments going to

Mick Jagger and indeed John McDonnell, that would be better

spent on the social care system, which needs more money. Lots of

people watching this programme are not very, very wealthy. They are

pensioners, wondering at what level they are going to lose their winter

fuel payments. They are very concerned. And you are not going to

tell them. We will consult so that everyone who is in genuine need of

the winter fuel payment will still get it, but we think the money that

is currently being spent on people who need it less, many of

whom have come up and said to me over the years, should I really be

getting this? That money is better spent in a social care system that

we all agree is one of the challenges facing our system. We

deal with the big challenges facing this country, but Labour do not. You

have reams of clever people trawling through the Labour Party promises

and costing them all, and telling you what it might cost. Your

document, those clever people are saying nothing to pensioners

watching this programme, who need to know before voting day that they are

going to lose payments. Do they not deserve that? They will know that if

they are in genuine need of the winter of your payments, they will

still get it. After the election, we will consult on it, because that is

the sensible way to do it. That's the way a grown up government will

operate. You say, here is the broad proposal, the manifesto, that will

cause interest among commentators. It's not commentators interested in

it, it's pensioners watching this programme who are wondering that if

they vote Conservative on June the 8th, will they lose their winter

fuel payment on June the 15th? They will be able to contribute to the

consultation. Those pensioners will know that we have massively reduced

pension poverty, one of the great thing is that successive government

has done. In the 1970s, it was 40% of pensioners. We have got that down

to 14% I'm proud that we have introduced the auto enrolled system,

which means that millions more people are now saving for a pension.

We are looking ahead generations, long-term, not just the election. We

have some well slipped sideways away from winter fuel payments. You need

that money, and David Cameron said at the time of the last election,

talking about the then Labour Party to take winter few payments away

from only the top 5%, by restricting these payments is the only you make

big savings. He said, once they start chipping away at these

payments, believe me, before long, they will start getting wood of them

altogether, and people who work hard all their lives will be written off

and forgotten about. We have identified social care is one of the

big issues that older people and their children care about. We think

that restricting winter fuel payment to those who genuinely need it... We

as a country will decide what that is in a proper consultation, which

is the way governments should operate. So you will not tell people

now. Releasing that money for use in the social care system is a great

way to start improving our social care system, which is vital to many

people, at the same time as allowing them to keep their home, letting

them know they can pass on ?100,000 to the next generation. Can you

remind people watching what the conservative policy was in 2015

on social care? The policy was, broadly speaking, to continue what

had happened before. It was the still not proposals. And the cap

was... The amount people could save was 20 3000. The cap was going to be

about 70 2000. -- ?72,000. We know that they are going to be 2 million

more over 75 in ten years' time, which is great. We are all living

longer. We have not broken our promises, because we have devised a

better system. The idea that the only people could pass on was

?23,000 is being replaced by our idea in the manifesto that they will

be able to pass on 100,000. The crucial difference is that the value

of their house is now taken into account as an asset if they are

being cared for at home. Let's think of a constituency like Ashford in

Kent, where the average value of a house is ?240,000. If there is a

widow living in an average house in Ashford, under the new policy, how

much extra might she have to pay? If she is living on her own, she will

be able to stay in her house throughout her lifetime. If she's

not a widow, if she is married, her spouse will be able to stay in her

house for their lifetime. I'm just suggesting, she has dementia, poor

woman. She is being looked after in her own home in Ashford. How much

extra will she have to pay under your policy? She won't be paying

anything. She will. She won't be paying anything. She can stay at

home, if she is able to be cared for at home. Quite rightly, she will be

able to stay there. How much extra? It will depend on the other costs,

but what her children can know, or whoever she wants to leave money to,

she... She's going to pay an extra ?70,000, twice what she would have

been paying under the previous policy. I suspect that figure

requires some assumptions. She will be able to vote Conservative, as

will her children, because they will know that what ever level of care

she needs, this removes that terrible decision of how long you

should keep someone at home, or maybe put them into residential

care. That decision needn't be influenced by financial

considerations. Everyone can be confident that they... Let them

inherit ?100,000 as opposed to the ?23,000 that was there before. Let

us talk about inheritance and cascading the wealth through

generations. Let's take the example of Twickenham, where Vince Cable for

the Lib Dems is fighting you hard. An average house their costs

?545,000. Imagine we have a couple where the chap has early-onset

dementia and is being cared for at home. Under your proposals, they

could lose virtually everything. Their children and their

grandchildren, hoping to inherit some of that wealth, will not be

able to. It was going to be 500, it is now 100. ?100,000 is a reasonable

inheritance to have. People who are lucky enough to have great rises in

property value will still decide that ?100,000 is best way of it.

This has to be put in the context of funding the social care system. I

understand there is a problem, I'm just asking you about your answers

to it. More money goes into the social care system. Everybody knows

there will be a decent inheritance for them. Nobody will have to lose

their home during their lifetime. This is a much fairer system. The

Conservatives used to believe in inheritance. This is a vast, secret

inheritance tax. You remember the Bow group? You are a kind of no

group guys. The Bow group has gone off on a journey! They say this is

the biggest stealth tax in history. They are wrong. We are saying

everyone can inherit ?100,000, regardless of the costs that the

state and therefore the taxpayer has paid to them. One of the big issues

that is facing this country is intergenerational fairness. Let me

finish. You have to be fair to people working now and paying taxes,

that is the only other way to pay for the care system. This system we

are proposing is fair both to pensioners, and particularly the

minority of pensioners who might need long-term care, and for working

taxpayers. You can ask John McDonnell. I will ask him the

questions I want to. Life is unfair generally. It is unfair that some

people get dementia and some don't. Under the recent deal not system, we

spread out the unfairness. If you are very unlucky and you get a

terrible disease meaning that you are being looked after at home, the

rest of society will come in and help. You don't have to pay again.

Under the new proposals, here is what Sir Andrew deal not himself has

said. People will be left helpless, knowing that they will be an

entirely on their own until they are down to the last ?100,000 of all

their wealth, including their house. There are two problems with what

Andrew Dilnott proposed in a series of proposals. One is that the social

insurance he proposed as a way of doing it, there are just no products

therefore it. That market doesn't exist. And the other is that his

problem, setting a cap on the floor, meant that the distribution of the

benefits became wildly uneven. We are a party that, at Theresa May

wants a country that works for everyone, so it's got to work for

people not just in Ashford and Twickenham, but also in Hartlepool,

North Wales and Scotland. Allowing everyone to know that there is this

flat figure of ?100,000, fair to everyone. Briefly, in Ashford,

Twickenham and other places, people hate this policy and it makes them

very nervous indeed. Is there any chance you will look at it again?

No. What we said in the manifesto, to put that answer in context, is

that we have set out this policy that we will not look at again.

There will be a Green paper covering social care and health coming out in

the summer. We all know that the long-term solution to the social

care crisis is better integration of the NHS and social care. This is the

first step towards that. For now, thank you very much for driving us.

the Sunday Politics with Andrew Neil.

He'll be speaking to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury,

David Gauke, and taking a closer look at the state of the polls.

That's at 11 o'clock here on BBC One.

I'm joined now by the Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell.

You will have heard all about. Before we start, can I pay tribute

to Brendan Cox. I thought that was extremely moving and extremely

courageous as well, what he has done. Thank you very much. Can I ask

you, talking about social care, what is the Labour policy on funding

social care? Immediately, we're promised to put in ?8 billion over

the lifetime of Parliament to plug the gap that the Conservatives have

treated. Part of this crisis is not just about an ageing population. It

is also about the ?4.7 billion that has been cut by the Conservatives

from social care since 2010. We are suggesting that we need to get back

to the dill not proposals. Including a cap? Let's be clear, what he

recommended was a cap, which I agree with. If you remember, the

recommendation coming out of David Cameron was ?72,000. And you would

stick with around that? I think so. The point you make about the

lottery, what condition would you get? The reason that some people are

calling it a dementia taxes because you do not know what condition you

will suffer West. I tell you, I have been through this in my family, and

the burden falls upon you. The proposal from the Dilnot was also to

have a threshold as well so there would be enough to protect your

assets but he said this basic principle, the NHS principle, you

pull the risk, and that way people are not left on their own. I gave

Damian Green some examples and I will give you an example as well.

Think of a couple living in Burnley, a constituency that is strongly

fought over at the moment. The average house could be worth less

than ?100,000 and for people who need social care at home in

birdlike, the labour heartland, this is great news. It means they will

not have to pay a penny. It gives them security. OK. My daughters live

near Burnley and property prices are increasing their as they are around

the country. What we want to do is make sure that there is a pooled

risk so that everyone is certain. The concept that we are all in this

together I think is the right one to apply to health as well as social

care. In that way, that is why we supported Dilnot but we also

approached a -- of supported a cross-party approach because we need

something sustainable across generations. That is why we are said

to the Conservative Party, pool this, and go back to what Dilnot was

proposing. I think that we have been let down because of what was in the

Conservative manifesto. Let me at you about your own manifesto. Will

you end the freeze on welfare? We will put in ?30 million over the

term of the next Parliament. The implication of that will be that

basically the freeze, the impact of these proposals will make it

relevant because we will reform the process. You know what I have said

when the freeze was introduced to... I am interested that when I say,

will you end of the freeze on benefits you cannot simply say yes.

In effect, we will be doing that as part of the overall reform package

which includes the introduction of a real living wage as well, which

includes the reform of Universal credits and a range of other aspects

including scrapping the bedroom tax, sanctions etc. What about child tax

credits? Are you going to restore those? We are looking at an overall

and comrades of reform. You should be able to say yes. You said you

were going to abolish it. People know how strongly I feel about this.

And Jeremy Corbyn. That is why I'd use that expression. That is wiped

my first budget, the reforms that we will bring forward will make sure

that people are not just protected but that the system will be reformed

to benefit them. If you are angry about it, you could reverse it. The

resolution foundation on which the Labour Party has rested heavily says

that 78% of Conservative cuts under your proposals will not be reversed.

I do not accept that. I think the proposals that will be put forward

on reform, as we have set out already, will ensure that in effect

we will be addressing this issue of how we reverse the benefit freeze

itself. I want to do it as part of an overall reform package and not

just pick it off one by one. I tell you, I feel so strongly on this

issue that we will deliver this in the first budget. It will cost you

?8 billion to do the things that I suggested. Socialism, as the man

said, is the language of priorities. And your priorities as a government

seem to be directed more towards middle-class families. You found ?11

billion to reverse the university charges. And those fees mainly go to

middle-class families. Why can you not find that money for people on

benefits? We are putting ?30 billion into benefit changes to make sure we

tackle the real issues and reform the system. ?30 billion is going in.

Remember, I know what people are saying about the issue of tuition

fees. For the first time we have seen that because the Tories are

increasing tuition fees, we have just seen the percentage of state

children declining. It is becoming a disincentive of our youngsters --

for our youngsters to stay on which affects aspiring working class

families. Let's look at another aspect of the manifesto. Higher

taxes, and higher debt. You have said they will borrow roughly ?25

billion a year for ten years, ?250 billion, a huge amount of money, but

you have also said that you will nationalise privatised industries

without telling us how much that will cost and at the end of all of

this you will have less debt than before. Less in real terms? In

relationship to trend GDP. So it is a smaller percent, a smaller figure?

As the economy grows. That is the way that economists and others, the

markets, value our economy. Let me take you through this. But that all

the to get those numbers to work, that depends on a certain rate of

growth of the economy otherwise it is meaningless. What is the rate of

growth? Let me take you through this bit by bit because we need to unpick

that. We will start off with the basic proposal as well. We published

this. No other political party, certainly not be conservatives,

have. You pick to Damian up on this one. Others, the ISS, other

independent organisations have discussed the additional money

needed for the Tory manifesto, ?40 billion. There is not a ? in their

manifesto. It is completely unposted. He had a go at you and you

are having a go at him. I want to come onto your own borrowing. We

published this on the basis of every policy being costed and funded. On

borrowing, on the ?25 billion, you know as well as I do that the OBR

multiplier is one. That means for every ?1 human invest you get at

least ?1 back. That will cover our borrowing as we go forward. The ?25

billion a year, how have I arrived at that figure? It is from the CBI

saying that we need ?500 billion investment over ten years. So less

than a figure than the figure of economic growth that you require to

fund your demands? The OPI analysis is that for every ?1 human best you

will get a pound back so that will cover the borrowing itself. Can you

give us a figure in terms of the economic growth that you require? It

is cost neutral. It cannot be cost neutral if the economy is not

growing. What I'm saying is that the OBR is saying very clearly that they

have a multiplier ratio of one. So 1% growth? For every 1% investment,

you get 1% back. All point of this is that I have put forward a

programme that is completely cost neutral. I think we're not getting

anywhere here. I am trying to say to you... So what is the theory behind

nationalising? Our capital investment programme is cost neutral

because for everything you put in, you get the money back. This is the

Office for Budget Responsibility saying this, not me. On the

nationalised industries we will issue bonds for share as meaning

that we get an asset in return and again, that becomes cost neutral. In

terms of costs involved, remember that we will be getting the income

from those nationalised industries and that will cover the ability to

reduce charges on the customers, and at the same time it will cover any

costs incurred through investments that we need. I put it to you that

this depends on economic growth and on the other side, apart from the

top 5% that you are going for in terms of income tax and so forth,

there is a raft of business taxes in there, higher corporation tax and a

so-called Robin Hood tax. Taxes on companies that spend more than

?330,000 on salaries. They make sense individually, but at a time

when this country is on the edge of leaving the EU, and lots of

companies and lots of individuals are thinking, shall I say in Britain

or go somewhere else, this will have the effect of driving away the same

people you need in this country? Quite the reverse, because what we

do in terms of our spending policies is exactly what businesses have been

asking for. Long-term, patient, stable investment. They are not

asking for higher corporation tax. We're giving them the opportunity to

invest in this country alongside government, that is why we are

setting up a national investment bank. And this is fully costed based

upon the principles of what... And can I say one thing very quickly,

who told us that now is the time to invest because interest rates are

virtually zero? David Cameron -- Philip Hammond, only a couple of

months ago. Who knows whether he will be there in a couple of months.

You have been discussing union green through me, and you will be able to

talk to them directly in just a second but let's look at what is

coming up straight after this programme. Join us at 10am and we

will be debating one very big question. Will globalisation make

the world a better place? We have assembled economics,

environmentalists and seasoned economists to debate perhaps the

biggest question facing all of us. See you at 10am on BBC One. Very

interesting. Damian Green and John McDonnell are both back here. John

just mentioned Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, there is a lot of talk

that you are being lined up for his job. Have you had any conversation

with anybody about this? No. Not at all. Philip Hammond is doing a great

job as Chancellor and I'm sure he will continue to do so after the

election. Can I address something that John said, he said we're not

going to borrow anything but we will issue bonds. That is how governments

borrow money. It is absurd to say that you can take the rail

industry... And it is covered. You issue bonds for sharers, and the

income from assets then covers the costs. Simple as that. It has been

done by government after government. But that is borrowing. It is ?25

billion plus ?40 billion for the national debt. You do not seem to

know how governments borrow. But that is covered by the income from

those assets, isn't it? Isn't it? If I take a mortgage on my house, I am

borrowing huge of money. I have still borrow the money. These are

operational companies who have profits. Those profits will... You

are saying it is not borrowing. It is borrowing. I am still really

interested in what you both think the economy needs to grow back,

because John McDonnell was saying that your manifesto has ?14 billion

of extra spending hidden inside it. That needs to come from somewhere.

You have huge spending commitments and that needs to come from

somewhere. This needs to come from the economy, how much does it have

to increase? We are saying that for every level of investment we are

putting in we will get an exact return or more solid balances out.

This becomes cost neutral. We have funded it, we have funded it. In

their manifesto, not a single ?. You have not funded a single any for the

National Grid, the water industry, have the energy industry. This is

fatuous economic talk. What happens is that you borrow the money.

Exactly, you borrow the money, and that adds to your borrowing total.

But what you're doing, in the water industry, you are an associate

director of the country in the water industry. You were and you made

quite a profit out of it. ?18 billion worth of profits paid out to

shareholders during your period. And what we are going to do is take that

money and instead of using it as dividends for rich people like you,

we're going to ensure it covers the costs. We will instead... Settle

down, both of you. Instead of giving that to dividends, we we use it to

cut costs. You do not understand capitalism. You certainly do, don't

you, because you have made a fortune out of the water companies. Can I

ask one thing about the Conservative plans, because what you have not

done is been very clear about what is going to happen to taxes if you

are re-elected. Is the truth not that you will actually have to pay

taxes up? ?14 billion means ?1000 on taxes. We have said that we are not

going to increase VAT. How will you fund ?40 billion? Because we will

not be clobbering businesses with every tax. ?40 billion will mean

?1000 to the average person on income tax. The three people still

watching are about to turn offer. Thank you to all my guests this

week. Next week I will be joined by the Green Party's Caroline Lucas and

Leanne Wood from Plaid Cymru. Thank you. Goodbye.