:00:15. > :00:21.Tonight on this week, this time they killed 22 and injured many more.
:00:22. > :00:25.They targeted children. Now there'll be troops on the streets and the
:00:26. > :00:32.terror threat's raised to critical for the first time in nearly a
:00:33. > :00:35.decade. Is that the answer? Counter-Terrorism experts say it's
:00:36. > :00:41.time world leaders and NATO step up to the mark. NATO needs to evolve to
:00:42. > :00:45.fight terror on a global scale, even if that means having troops on the
:00:46. > :00:48.ground once again in Afghanistan. Campaigning for the general election
:00:49. > :00:53.was put on hold, but not before a manifesto U-turn unlike any we have
:00:54. > :00:56.seen. Or was it... Jo Coburn looks back at a turbulent week. Some may
:00:57. > :01:02.have thought this election was a done deal but nothing in politics is
:01:03. > :01:07.ever that straightforward. As the parties resume campaigning, there's
:01:08. > :01:10.still all to play for. Tonight, This Week like Manchester, like all of
:01:11. > :01:18.us, we are getting on with business as usual. Are you feeling strong and
:01:19. > :01:23.stable? Jan Raven puts it in the Spotlight. Forget political jar Don
:01:24. > :01:30.gone, the most powerful words are those that come from the heart. We
:01:31. > :01:33.won't take defeat and we don't want your pity because this is the place
:01:34. > :01:35.where we stand strong together with a smile on our face, Mancunians
:01:36. > :01:48.forever... I won't repeat a version
:01:49. > :01:55.of the remarks I made on this programme in the wake of the Paris
:01:56. > :01:58.and Westminster terrorist attacks, though I know some
:01:59. > :02:00.of you were hoping I would. They apply with equal force
:02:01. > :02:03.to what happened on Monday night, even more so since it involved
:02:04. > :02:06.the deliberate But perhaps the time
:02:07. > :02:11.for rhetoric is over and we need to concentrate more on what we're
:02:12. > :02:14.going to do about it. As atrocity follows
:02:15. > :02:17.atrocity, we've fallen Our hearts go out to those killed
:02:18. > :02:27.and maimed, the pointless, We admire the stoicism and resolve
:02:28. > :02:34.of those towns and cities who've We're rightly proud of our brave
:02:35. > :02:39.and professional emergency services. We aver the terrorists
:02:40. > :02:41.will not divide us. Because that's what they want
:02:42. > :02:46.and they will not have it. We know Muslims are not our enemy
:02:47. > :02:50.and that they have as much to fear from the Islamists within our midst
:02:51. > :02:53.as the rest of us. But, despite horror upon horror,
:02:54. > :02:56.we have yet to have a proper national conversation
:02:57. > :02:57.on what the right long-term response should be to root out this tiny
:02:58. > :03:05.but deadly cancer that afflicts us. Not just the security
:03:06. > :03:08.or military responses, important as they are,
:03:09. > :03:11.but the grassroots, community, local responses that would stop this
:03:12. > :03:14.evil from flourishing The election campaign
:03:15. > :03:24.begins again tomorrow. Is it too much to ask that,
:03:25. > :03:28.in the two weeks till polling day, those who would govern us do not
:03:29. > :03:32.return to the banalities that have characterised some of this election
:03:33. > :03:35.so far and begin instead a mature debate on what is, literally,
:03:36. > :03:47.a matter of life and death? Well, I think I agree with every
:03:48. > :03:51.word that you've just said and, at the end of the clip at the beginning
:03:52. > :03:55.of the programme, we saw Tony Walsh, the member for manslaughter poet
:03:56. > :03:58.talking about the wit and the grit of Manchester and asked Manchester
:03:59. > :04:04.to choose love and, although you are quite right that it's a cliche that
:04:05. > :04:08.people have shown stoicism and solidarity, nonetheless it's
:04:09. > :04:17.striking. I mean, normal life is going on. In these circumstances,
:04:18. > :04:23.people say life must go on, ordinary life must go on. I say more than
:04:24. > :04:27.that, life has to be celebrated. When confronted with incredible
:04:28. > :04:32.depravity and profanity, you have to celebrate what humanity has achieved
:04:33. > :04:36.because humanity at itself best, it's science, art, kindness, it's
:04:37. > :04:42.philanthropy, all the things that make our society. It's not just that
:04:43. > :04:47.life must go on, it's that life must be celebrated because, otherwise you
:04:48. > :04:52.have to counterbalance added to the depravity. Alan? One thing struck me
:04:53. > :04:57.which should have struck me before about this week's events. That was,
:04:58. > :05:01.when I was Home Secretary, one of the most important security
:05:02. > :05:06.relationships we had was with Libya because that was on the route from
:05:07. > :05:13.north Africa to Europe. It should have struck me earlier, but suddenly
:05:14. > :05:18.from being a help to our security, we suddenly find a Libyan
:05:19. > :05:24.radicalised Islamist creating the problem. I was in Parliament, I
:05:25. > :05:29.voted for intervention in Libya, but goodness, you know, when you look at
:05:30. > :05:34.what that - I know we'll talk about it in a minute - but what that
:05:35. > :05:40.particular action's created in that failed state, you do wonder whether
:05:41. > :05:44.every step we take is coordinated in the fight against terror.
:05:45. > :05:46.It's interesting you raise the Libyan connection because it's
:05:47. > :05:51.clearly a factor. Police named the suicide bomber
:05:52. > :05:54.as 22-year-old Salman Ramadan Abedi. His parents, opponents
:05:55. > :05:56.of the Gadaffi regime, Abedi was born here and went
:05:57. > :06:01.to school in Manchester, His background was not deprived
:06:02. > :06:07.and for most of his life it He played football, supported
:06:08. > :06:10.Manchester United and liked cricket. Latterly, he was known,
:06:11. > :06:13.to some extent, to the security services on a long list of "subjects
:06:14. > :06:16.of interest" whose threat level They explained today that at any one
:06:17. > :06:22.time the intelligence services are involved in 500 operations
:06:23. > :06:25.covering over 3,000 people. So an Abedi slipping through the net
:06:26. > :06:30.is perhaps inevitable. We do not yet know what radicalised
:06:31. > :06:36.him or what role his family, Libya, Syria or Islamic State played
:06:37. > :06:39.in it, if any. We do know, now, that he was capable
:06:40. > :06:43.of unspeakable evil. Here's counter terrorism
:06:44. > :06:47.expert, Sajjan Gohel The terrorist attack on Manchester
:06:48. > :07:14.is one of the most disturbing the European continent has
:07:15. > :07:19.had to endure. But its depravity tells us something
:07:20. > :07:22.about the sorry state of Isis. As it loses its grip
:07:23. > :07:25.in the Middle East, it Isis partly recruits
:07:26. > :07:32.its Western-born terrorists through its virtual network,
:07:33. > :07:36.a cancer that metastasises Attacks coordinated remotely
:07:37. > :07:41.are harder to track, but this doesn't mean
:07:42. > :07:45.that the British authorities need greater surveillance powers
:07:46. > :07:48.to monitor individuals, Their grassroots engagement and
:07:49. > :07:53.intelligence gathering is peerless. What they really need is more money
:07:54. > :08:04.for front line policing. But there's only so much that can be
:08:05. > :08:07.done at a national level. Terrorism, after all,
:08:08. > :08:10.is a global threat. It's time for Nato to
:08:11. > :08:13.step up to the mark. US President Donald Trump who met
:08:14. > :08:17.with Nato leaders in Brussels today, wants the organisation to evolve
:08:18. > :08:20.from a Cold War era defence system to a proactive counter-terrorism
:08:21. > :08:25.agency fit for the 21st-century. Regardless of the damaging leaks
:08:26. > :08:30.from America, Nato members must This will allow them to conduct
:08:31. > :08:38.forensic intelligence and counterinsurgency
:08:39. > :08:41.operations more effectively. For example, better access
:08:42. > :08:45.to information from Spain and Italy on jihadists in Libya could help
:08:46. > :08:48.thwart potential future threats Nato needs to put boots
:08:49. > :08:54.on the ground to halt terrorist activity before it
:08:55. > :08:58.reaches these shores. While this wouldn't be
:08:59. > :09:01.appropriate in Libya, where the Manchester attacker
:09:02. > :09:04.visited, it is essential in Afghanistan, which is once again
:09:05. > :09:07.turning into a hotbed for radical extremists deeply
:09:08. > :09:13.hostile to the West. However, just like British
:09:14. > :09:17.counterterrorism efforts, And Nato members need to start
:09:18. > :09:24.paying their fair share into the organisation's budget
:09:25. > :09:28.to prevent terrorism being born in hostile environments and directly
:09:29. > :09:31.impacting upon its citizens. If Nato members do not pay up
:09:32. > :09:34.the cash, then its citizens will pay Sajjan, who is International
:09:35. > :09:47.Security Director at the Asia-Pacific Foundation
:09:48. > :09:56.joins me now. Should NATO reinvent itself to give
:09:57. > :10:02.itself a much enhanced Counter-Terrorism capability? NATO
:10:03. > :10:06.should focus on Counter-Terrorism. Whether that involves reinventing
:10:07. > :10:11.itself I don't know. I think that's easier said but I don't entirely
:10:12. > :10:15.know what it means. If I was still Defence Secretary, I would need an
:10:16. > :10:20.awful lot of convincing that we should go back into Afghanistan.
:10:21. > :10:29.It's not clear to me - I pick up on a point that Alan made - it's not
:10:30. > :10:36.clear that it's done more to suppress terrorism than it's done to
:10:37. > :10:37.arouse disgruntlement. Alan? Enhanced counterintelligence,
:10:38. > :10:43.counterterrorist capability for NATO? Well, I think with the five Is
:10:44. > :10:49.we have got a good Counter-Terrorism network that involves NATO countries
:10:50. > :10:53.as well. I'm not quite sure how you could improve on that. You could
:10:54. > :10:58.improve on some of the actions of America this week in terms of their
:10:59. > :11:02.press but how you could cooperate more in terms of sharing
:11:03. > :11:06.intelligence. I would need to be convinced, just as Michael would,
:11:07. > :11:08.about putting troops back into Afghanistan, I would need convincing
:11:09. > :11:12.that there would be a problem waiting to be resolved. Certainly
:11:13. > :11:18.there is a problem in police numbers. Front line policing, PCSOs,
:11:19. > :11:23.you know, people who were not due to go to court with criminals just to
:11:24. > :11:28.know their patch and patrol their patch are one of the greatest
:11:29. > :11:33.sources we had of information in terms of Prevent. The numbers have
:11:34. > :11:37.diminished and that must be something that needs to be put
:11:38. > :11:42.right. I want to come on to Afghanistan and police numbers in a
:11:43. > :11:46.moment. Let's stick with NATO. It's a collection of disparate states,
:11:47. > :11:52.including Turkey. It wasn't formed to fight terrorism, it was formed to
:11:53. > :11:56.deal with the Soviet threat. Could it ever really unite behind the
:11:57. > :12:00.common Counter-Terrorism strategy? It's important because of the fact
:12:01. > :12:04.that all the NATO countries, they together can actually form a
:12:05. > :12:09.collective body of intelligence. There are, as Alan mentioned,
:12:10. > :12:13.networks and institutions that pull together intelligence, but there is
:12:14. > :12:17.a gap missing when it comes to military intelligence. There is no
:12:18. > :12:20.entity bringing the different groups together from a military
:12:21. > :12:23.perspective. It was tried in Afghanistan in the aftermath of
:12:24. > :12:27.9/11, proved to be very successful but it wasn't sustained because
:12:28. > :12:32.unfortunately, the Iraq war took precedence then. Are we going to
:12:33. > :12:38.share intelligence with Turkey? Enit comes to dealing with foreign
:12:39. > :12:41.terrorist fighters operating in conflict areas where there are
:12:42. > :12:45.hostile threat, it's important to share information. Every country as
:12:46. > :12:50.a piece of the puzzle. If you put it together, you form a wider picture
:12:51. > :12:54.as to what that wider network is. If you keep the intelligence facts as
:12:55. > :12:58.preserved secrets, you're undermining your own ability to
:12:59. > :13:02.thwart terrorism. Even if we had the intelligence and I have doubts that
:13:03. > :13:05.NATO is going to share it in the way you think amongst its own members,
:13:06. > :13:10.plus British intelligence does not have a high regard for Spanish or
:13:11. > :13:15.Italian intelligence, I know that first hand. But you talk about
:13:16. > :13:22.putting boots on the ground. Getting a NATO agreement on that is nigh on
:13:23. > :13:26.impossible? Well, the US commander currently in Afghanistan has called
:13:27. > :13:31.for more troops, not necessarily to fight frontline but to help in terms
:13:32. > :13:34.of the training of the Afghan forces, to provide support. The
:13:35. > :13:39.thing is this, Afghanistan's never been properly dealt with. We have
:13:40. > :13:43.been there for 16 years. Yes, but after 9/11 for two years, the
:13:44. > :13:48.Taliban were on the verge of being decimated, taking a number of hits.
:13:49. > :13:52.Then in 2003, the Iraq war distracted the entire situation,
:13:53. > :13:56.resources were taken away, the focus went off, the Taliban reconstituted
:13:57. > :14:02.itself and it was able to then carry out more attacks. Do you reelly
:14:03. > :14:07.think there is an appetite in the West to pour more men into
:14:08. > :14:12.Afghanistan after being there for 16 years? Many people, as Michael
:14:13. > :14:16.alluded to, concluding that it's precisely by doing this sort of
:14:17. > :14:23.thing that we end up radicalising a small chunk of our youth? There's
:14:24. > :14:27.just no democratic will to do that? I respectfully disagree with both of
:14:28. > :14:30.you in the sense that you can not compare Afghanistan to Iraq or to
:14:31. > :14:36.Libya. Iraq in particular was a war of choice. We ignored Afghanistan to
:14:37. > :14:40.our peril in the 90s which allowed Al-Qaeda to grow, to develop, to
:14:41. > :14:46.plot and plan attacks and we ignored the attack on the US embassy in 98,
:14:47. > :14:55.on the USS Crow in 99 and then 9/11 happened. What's happening in
:14:56. > :14:58.Afghanistan, you don't just have a virulent Afghanistan insurgency, you
:14:59. > :15:03.have the Isis afilliate growing which is matching the Taliban for
:15:04. > :15:07.attacks and then, on top of that, you have the Hakani network involved
:15:08. > :15:12.in all kinds of terrorist related activity. If we ignore this problem,
:15:13. > :15:16.it will once again become accessible and you will have the potential blow
:15:17. > :15:24.back to the UK. You have grabbed my attention, I must say. What you say
:15:25. > :15:30.about the late 90s is absolutely right.
:15:31. > :15:38.President Clinton's response to the attack on the American Embassy is in
:15:39. > :15:42.Africa was highly inadequate. He was distracted by other things, and then
:15:43. > :15:46.9/11 came along. So if you are telling us there is a growth of a
:15:47. > :15:54.situation which is an allergist to that, I would want to look at that
:15:55. > :15:58.carefully. -- a situation which is analogous to that. Let's be clear,
:15:59. > :16:00.we did not pull out of Afghanistan because the job was done, but
:16:01. > :16:08.because it was politically unpopular. Casualties were mounting.
:16:09. > :16:12.If we are going to have this conversation, you grabbed my
:16:13. > :16:15.attention as well. I am still not convinced it is the right thing to
:16:16. > :16:21.do, but we have discounted all of that because it would be politically
:16:22. > :16:25.difficult. We certainly did not pull out because the job was done, but
:16:26. > :16:30.partly was because we were not convinced we were doing the job. In
:16:31. > :16:37.the end, it will not been Nato that will go in. The Italians, Germans,
:16:38. > :16:42.the Greeks, the Turks, the Spanish, they are not going to put troops
:16:43. > :16:46.into Afghanistan. That is true. But we have heard about the intelligence
:16:47. > :16:53.position. It is clear there is intelligence to be had in Denmark,
:16:54. > :16:57.Italy, Greece, all over the place. Win President Obama increased the
:16:58. > :17:01.number of troops to 100,000 in 2010, progress was made against the
:17:02. > :17:06.Taliban for two years, and then they were withdrawn over a very short
:17:07. > :17:12.period of time. Then you create a security vacuum. It is important to
:17:13. > :17:16.add that Iran and Russia are now showing interest with the Taliban.
:17:17. > :17:20.That is another dynamic that did not exist previously and could be a
:17:21. > :17:26.major security challenge. Some people watching this will say, have
:17:27. > :17:29.we learned nothing? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, every time we have
:17:30. > :17:36.tried to do something in these places, it just gets worse. With
:17:37. > :17:41.respect, you are again lumping Afghanistan with Iraq and Libya. It
:17:42. > :17:45.is a separate issue. The Afghan people want the Western coalition
:17:46. > :17:49.there. They would not be wanted in Iraq or Libya. That is completely
:17:50. > :17:56.understandable. We cannot get involved in Libya or Iraq. Nato
:17:57. > :17:59.could not get involved in Afghanistan either. In Afghanistan,
:18:00. > :18:03.the situation is different. The people are in fear of the Taliban.
:18:04. > :18:08.They are taking districts in the south and east. Sang Kim, which
:18:09. > :18:14.British soldiers died protecting, has now fallen to the Taliban. In
:18:15. > :18:18.retrospect, was it wise to cut police numbers and resources at a
:18:19. > :18:25.time of heightened terrorist threat? It may not have been, but I suspect
:18:26. > :18:32.quite a small number of police are involved in anything to do with
:18:33. > :18:36.terrorism. 3000. I take the point that eyes and ears in the local
:18:37. > :18:40.community can be useful, but much more useful, I would have thought,
:18:41. > :18:46.than a community police officer, is a member of the community who has
:18:47. > :18:53.information, who becomes a double agent, who is working for us. That
:18:54. > :18:57.is what really produces results. We spend billions on intelligence and
:18:58. > :18:59.security but only tens of millions trying to stop extremism from
:19:00. > :19:08.spreading in some of our communities. Is that an imbalance we
:19:09. > :19:12.need to address? 1% on Prevent. The debate about Prevent is totally
:19:13. > :19:16.false, because of course if you are going to have a strategy to protect
:19:17. > :19:20.and pursue, you have to have one strand of it designed not to see
:19:21. > :19:25.these lads, these youngsters radicalised in the first place. So
:19:26. > :19:33.the argument has to be how best to do it, how much money to spend on
:19:34. > :19:37.it, not whether to do it or not. Khalid Mahmood, the first Muslim MP,
:19:38. > :19:40.said the other week that the voices against this in the Muslim community
:19:41. > :19:47.are small groups who have no alternative and our generally
:19:48. > :19:50.hostile, have their own agenda. Prevent has to continue and I am
:19:51. > :19:57.sure there will be more money put into it. What is your view on this?
:19:58. > :19:59.Prevent is an important component. Part of the problem often is that
:20:00. > :20:04.people don't understand what it does at community level. If the
:20:05. > :20:10.assumption is that communities defeat terrorism, we need to improve
:20:11. > :20:14.and increase on front line community policing, to engage with the public,
:20:15. > :20:18.to earn their trust, to preserve the relationships that exist. The
:20:19. > :20:23.British police services are some of the finest in the world. The amount
:20:24. > :20:27.of work they have done in foiling plots, but also interacting with
:20:28. > :20:32.communities, is not compatible with other countries. We do not have the
:20:33. > :20:35.gaps that exist in France or Belgium. Look at the case of what
:20:36. > :20:38.took place in the Paris attacks, when you have these individuals
:20:39. > :20:43.operating, travelling across different countries carrying out
:20:44. > :20:49.attacks. That individual that dumped his rucksack at the Stade de France,
:20:50. > :20:52.disappeared for six months, hiding in the capital of Belgium, and the
:20:53. > :20:57.Belgian police had no knowledge. That would never happen here. Often,
:20:58. > :21:03.we do not value and appreciate our British police services, the men and
:21:04. > :21:06.women. And in the community, the police have to come from that
:21:07. > :21:13.community, too, to some extent, don't they? You had neighbourhood
:21:14. > :21:18.policing teams, a Sergeant, four constables and four or five police
:21:19. > :21:22.community support officers. The whole point of them was to know the
:21:23. > :21:25.community. They came from the community, which quite often the
:21:26. > :21:31.police in a neighbourhood policing team do not. Their job was to be the
:21:32. > :21:35.eyes and ears. It seems, because we have this big structure of
:21:36. > :21:40.intelligence, and people focus on MI5, much of this information came
:21:41. > :21:43.from the cheapest form, if you like, the police community support
:21:44. > :21:46.officers on the street, picking up information in the community about
:21:47. > :21:51.someone. The information, incidentally, generally came from
:21:52. > :21:57.the Muslim community. So it is invaluable. If you compare this
:21:58. > :22:02.country to other countries, I think Brussels was a case in point, we do
:22:03. > :22:08.this very well. And many other countries are keen to learn how we
:22:09. > :22:12.do it. Are you optimistic we will get this right? I believe that
:22:13. > :22:16.everything is being done that can be under the resources provided to foil
:22:17. > :22:19.and disrupt plots. We have to keep in mind that there are some people
:22:20. > :22:23.who could be prevented from being radicalised if they are got to
:22:24. > :22:26.early. Others are so far gone ideological you that there is
:22:27. > :22:31.nothing you can do other than to arrest and prosecute them. This
:22:32. > :22:35.individual behind the Manchester attack, he had three objectives. The
:22:36. > :22:40.first was to kill women and children. The second was to create
:22:41. > :22:45.disruption. And the third was to create social tension. This is the
:22:46. > :22:48.tactic and hallmark of Isis. We should not forget that before they
:22:49. > :22:52.kill those innocent people in Manchester, Isis have been murdering
:22:53. > :22:56.Muslims, especially women and children, in Iraq and Syria, which
:22:57. > :23:00.does not get much attention. They are a death cult and they kill
:23:01. > :23:04.everybody. But I believe that with the police that we have, the job
:23:05. > :23:07.that they are doing, we are the safest country in the world. They
:23:08. > :23:12.have disrupted far more than anyone else. It shows you that they do
:23:13. > :23:17.their job effectively, quietly, and once in awhile it would not go amiss
:23:18. > :23:18.if we showed them our appreciation. You have done precisely that. Thank
:23:19. > :23:38.you for being with us. Jan Raven is waiting in the wings to
:23:39. > :23:46.put language in the spotlight. Now, to the general
:23:47. > :23:48.election, remember that? Or perhaps you'd rather forget
:23:49. > :23:51.the mudslinging and the endless loop Well, tough because it's back,
:23:52. > :23:55.suspended for three days in the wake of the Manchester terrorist attack,
:23:56. > :23:57.it is due to resume in earnest tomorrow with all
:23:58. > :24:00.the parties back on the road. All the parties, that is,
:24:01. > :24:03.except Ukip which decided Here's Jo Coburn with her round up
:24:04. > :24:23.of the political week. After the terror attack
:24:24. > :24:26.in Manchester, all parties suspended election campaigning,
:24:27. > :24:29.in a show of unity Politics on pause,
:24:30. > :24:43.theatrics off stage. The political week
:24:44. > :24:46.started so differently. This election hasn't exactly
:24:47. > :24:49.been a crowd-puller. But a twist in the plot suddenly
:24:50. > :24:52.made things more interesting. Tory manifesto proposals to make
:24:53. > :24:56.some elderly people pay more for their social care slash
:24:57. > :25:01.the party's lead in the polls. Cue consternation in Downing Street
:25:02. > :25:04.and a hastily re-written script Today you announced a cap,
:25:05. > :25:10.that sounds pretty half-baked. Your manifesto rejects a cap,
:25:11. > :25:16.it gives a reason why you don't want a cap,
:25:17. > :25:19.now you are going to have a cap. You need to be honest,
:25:20. > :25:22.I would suggest, and tell the British people you have
:25:23. > :25:24.changed your mind. Jeremy Corbyn wants to sneak
:25:25. > :25:26.into Number Ten by playing on the fears of older and vulnerable
:25:27. > :25:30.people and I've clarified what we will be putting in the green
:25:31. > :25:33.paper which I set out So Jeremy Corbyn is now
:25:34. > :25:37.rewriting your manifesto? Well, that's what it sounds like,
:25:38. > :25:42.you have reacted to him? Andrew, we've not
:25:43. > :25:49.rewritten the manifesto. Labour have seized on the social
:25:50. > :25:52.care cap U-turn as undermining the Prime Minister's strong
:25:53. > :25:53.and stable leadership. Leader, Jeremy Corbyn
:25:54. > :25:55.hit the campaign trail We have been in the north
:25:56. > :26:02.and in Scarborough. John Prescott laid into what he
:26:03. > :26:10.called the PM's firm and trust. She says please, I want to negotiate
:26:11. > :26:19.for you and firm and trust. Labour slightly rewrote
:26:20. > :26:26.their on script this week, pledging to scrap tuition fees this
:26:27. > :26:29.September, even sooner than We are determined to make sure
:26:30. > :26:34.that those in this country that go to university and we all benefit
:26:35. > :26:37.from the skills they develop in university, don't end up saddled
:26:38. > :26:46.with massive debts for the future. Jeremy Corbyn's left-wing manifesto
:26:47. > :26:47.lifted the party somewhat, but he got into difficulty this week
:26:48. > :26:53.with questions about the IRA. Can you condemn
:26:54. > :26:56.unequivocally the IRA? Look, bombing is wrong,
:26:57. > :26:58.of course all bombing But can you condemn the IRA
:26:59. > :27:06.without equating it to... No, I think what you have to say
:27:07. > :27:09.is all bombing has to be condemned and you have to bring
:27:10. > :27:11.about a peace process. The Lib Dems have put a second
:27:12. > :27:20.referendum on Brexit After all, it was supposed to be
:27:21. > :27:25.the Brexit election. But there doesn't seem to be as much
:27:26. > :27:29.public appetite for referendum part two as they first thought
:27:30. > :27:32.and the party's If you are bothered about our
:27:33. > :27:40.country shrinking to become meaner, NATS NATSier and poorer,
:27:41. > :27:43.then you need to do Give than Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
:27:44. > :27:47.basically held Theresa May's hand as we jumped off the extreme Brexit
:27:48. > :27:51.cliff edge earlier this year, the Liberal Democrats are the one
:27:52. > :27:54.party offering you hope. The Greens are also calling
:27:55. > :27:57.for a second referendum on Brexit. Their manifesto promised
:27:58. > :27:59.to scrap Trident and called The party also shares some policies
:28:00. > :28:11.with Labour, but are keen I feel so let down by the fact that
:28:12. > :28:16.Labour has not been a rigorous We are very clear that we want
:28:17. > :28:20.as close a relationship to the EU as possible,
:28:21. > :28:23.we want to be part of the single market and stand
:28:24. > :28:25.up for free movement. On the environment and climate
:28:26. > :28:28.change, they don't go North of the border and the first
:28:29. > :28:33.Scottish leader's TV debate. The Tories want to capitalise
:28:34. > :28:36.on what they see as wavering support Their leader, Ruth Davidson,
:28:37. > :28:45.clashed with the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon over
:28:46. > :28:47.the focus on Indi ref two. This has been through
:28:48. > :28:50.everybody's door. It's a four-page Tory leaflet and it
:28:51. > :28:53.mentions an independence Ruth Davidson is using independence
:28:54. > :28:58.as a smoke screen in this campaign because she knows the Tory record
:28:59. > :29:02.and Tory policies are toxic. This is the only thing
:29:03. > :29:04.you have ever wanted The country said no,
:29:05. > :29:08.the country said no The Manchester attack put rows
:29:09. > :29:23.about party leaflets on hold. The terror threat level's
:29:24. > :29:26.been raised to critical. The army's been deployed to give
:29:27. > :29:28.backup to the police We'll take every measure available
:29:29. > :29:35.to us and provide every additional resource we can to the police
:29:36. > :29:38.and Security Services as they work And while we mourn the victims
:29:39. > :29:45.of last night's appalling The spirit of Manchester
:29:46. > :29:54.and the spirit of Britain is far mightier than the sick plots
:29:55. > :29:57.of depraved terrorists. That is why the terrorists
:29:58. > :30:04.will never win and we will prevail. Ukip resumed election
:30:05. > :30:06.campaigning today. The first party to do
:30:07. > :30:11.so since the terror attack. At the manifesto launch,
:30:12. > :30:14.the tone was uncompromising, party leader Paul Nuttall said
:30:15. > :30:17.they were the only ones who would take what he called
:30:18. > :30:19.the necessary measures The problem will not be solved
:30:20. > :30:23.if politicians are too cowardly to confront or even identify
:30:24. > :30:33.where the problem lies. Moreover, without the political
:30:34. > :30:39.will to take difficult decisions, challenge communities and most
:30:40. > :30:42.importantly, secure our borders, These are issues that the other
:30:43. > :30:52.political parties would rather brush under the carpet and the Westminster
:30:53. > :30:58.chatterati would rather ignore. A dramatic manifesto U-turn
:30:59. > :31:00.and then politics suspended Campaigning is resuming
:31:01. > :31:15.but against a backdrop of terror. Jo treading the boards
:31:16. > :31:18.of the Arcola Theatre in Hackney, Thanks to them and their set
:31:19. > :31:22.designer Anthony Lamble. Suzanne Evans who wrote Ukip's
:31:23. > :31:30.manifesto has joined us. Welcome back to the programme. The
:31:31. > :31:34.U-turn on social care, has that been the defining moment of the campaign
:31:35. > :31:38.so far, Michael? Well, to be a defining moment, you would have to
:31:39. > :31:43.remember it on polling day and I'm not entirely sure that would be the
:31:44. > :31:47.case. We were into the high drama when the terrorist incident occurred
:31:48. > :31:51.and so her interrogation, her embarrassment over this was
:31:52. > :31:54.interrupted and what came next was that she appeared of course as the
:31:55. > :31:57.leader of the nation, talking about the security of the nation
:31:58. > :32:03.announcing what the new security measures would be. I don't
:32:04. > :32:06.understand what her compromise is, I don't know whether it's clear to
:32:07. > :32:11.you, it's not to me, but as I pointed out on the programme last
:32:12. > :32:15.week, what she apoored to be proposing last week was the most
:32:16. > :32:20.radical transfer of responsibility from the state to individuals --
:32:21. > :32:26.what she appeared. I applauded it because philosophically I thought it
:32:27. > :32:31.was the right thing to do. Last week people were fixated thinking she was
:32:32. > :32:35.a Stalinist Tory. It was an extraordinary transfer of
:32:36. > :32:39.responsibility of two people and therefore, you know, vast numbers of
:32:40. > :32:43.the middle classes not being able to pass on the inheritance which they
:32:44. > :32:48.were counting upon. By the way, this is what it's about. It's not about
:32:49. > :32:52.social care, it's about inheritance. It's not about old people, it's
:32:53. > :32:56.about the enrichment of younger people. Because their parents have
:32:57. > :32:59.got the money? Because their parents have got the money and somehow we
:33:00. > :33:05.have gotten ourselves into the state of mind that we think that the state
:33:06. > :33:12.is there to guarantee the inheritance of well-off middle class
:33:13. > :33:18.50 and 60-year-olds. I must agree, I had a sneaking admiration for her
:33:19. > :33:28.because I wrote an article for Saga magazine - it was the Musical
:33:29. > :33:33.Express once - now it's Saga. They'll put down a recipe to solve
:33:34. > :33:40.it, not kick it into the long grass, so we thought. She ignored Dilnot
:33:41. > :33:44.completely in the sense he said ?100,000 should be the new baseline.
:33:45. > :33:47.But then she ignored his argument that there should be a limit on
:33:48. > :33:52.cost. Now, this was an argument for ignoring that. There was a good
:33:53. > :33:56.argument for saying, look, there's a lot of wealth wrapped up in houses
:33:57. > :34:00.here and it should be shared out. There wasn't a good argument for
:34:01. > :34:04.doing that and then three days later going back to Dilnot, then being
:34:05. > :34:08.absolutely, you know, talk about straight faced when she's saying to
:34:09. > :34:11.you this was... I mean Jeremy Hunt, the minister responsible, it's a
:34:12. > :34:16.Department of Health issue, don't forget, saying why there shouldn't
:34:17. > :34:24.be a cap. He was saying we have done it explicitly in the manifesto.
:34:25. > :34:30.Incredibly cack-hand. Ukip which is in a tough campaign, has the row
:34:31. > :34:35.over social care helped? I totally disagree with what Michael and Alan
:34:36. > :34:42.are saying. You are right in a sense that it's about inheritance. I'm a
:34:43. > :34:46.mum, I'm not wealthy, my daughter is in a job where she's not paid very
:34:47. > :34:51.well, she loves her job. I want to leave her something. I've paid a lot
:34:52. > :34:55.of tax. If I get dementia, that is the only way in which I can be cared
:34:56. > :34:59.for basically, and to be looked after in a home, that is the only
:35:00. > :35:03.way, and I'm expected to pay for that. If I had some other terminal
:35:04. > :35:08.condition, the NHS would pay. Well, the NHS would pay for the
:35:09. > :35:14.operational side. Ukip turns out to be a Socialist Party. I'm quite
:35:15. > :35:19.socialist as you know, Michael. I'm criticised by my party for being too
:35:20. > :35:24.social. I'm glad you have agreed that it's about the protection of
:35:25. > :35:28.the inheritance of the middle class. The extension of the welfare
:35:29. > :35:34.state... The reason I think there was outcry about it was rightly,
:35:35. > :35:38.there are so many young people who, the only chance of them getting on
:35:39. > :35:44.the housing ladder, is their parents. For Cabinet Ministers to
:35:45. > :35:51.say ?100,000 is quite enough, I bet they wouldn't be very happy. Yes, to
:35:52. > :35:56.turn that around. They have some complicated deal maybe... Let's say
:35:57. > :36:01.the cap on spending is ?35,000, for adult social care. The person who is
:36:02. > :36:06.a multi-millionaire will pay ?35,000 and the person who is just about
:36:07. > :36:11.managing to coin a phrase will pay ?35,000. What is socialist and fair
:36:12. > :36:16.about that? The multi-millionaire who's also paid, one hopes, unless
:36:17. > :36:20.they have managed to evade it somehow, have paid lots of tax and
:36:21. > :36:24.they have paid for it. This idea that just because you are wealthy
:36:25. > :36:28.means you cannot therefore fall back on the state is... But why should...
:36:29. > :36:33.The state is there to protect the wealthy. I mean this is really
:36:34. > :36:40.weird. The wealthy have paid their way, Michael. They also deserve to
:36:41. > :36:43.be subsidised by the state. We are protecting the triple lock on
:36:44. > :36:47.pensions, the winter fuel allowance for everybody because we think that
:36:48. > :36:51.whether you have contributed or not is irrelevant. You may well have the
:36:52. > :36:57.right pop list policy... It's the right policy. Your position is
:36:58. > :37:01.intellectually indefensible. I absolutely disagree. You would
:37:02. > :37:06.because you are on a pop list policy. Why should taxpayers fare
:37:07. > :37:15.less better? Why should taxpayers pay... Hold on, why should they pay
:37:16. > :37:18.for your social care if you are sitting on multi-million pound
:37:19. > :37:22.assets? At the moment we have a system where people do have to sell
:37:23. > :37:29.their houses to pay for care, but what Theresa May did and what this
:37:30. > :37:33.particular... They can defer it? . They can defer it. But she was
:37:34. > :37:39.turning around a manifesto pledge. I wasn't asking about that. Let me ask
:37:40. > :37:42.the question again - why should ordinary taxpayers, a lot less
:37:43. > :37:47.wealthier than you, pay for your social care if you are sitting on
:37:48. > :37:51.multi-million pound assets that could pay for that social care?
:37:52. > :37:57.Excuse me, you are still making it too easy - if they are not paying
:37:58. > :38:01.for the social care, they are paying for their inheritance. People who
:38:02. > :38:06.earn more than ?10,000, they're being asked to pay taxes sothat
:38:07. > :38:10.people who're aged 50 and 60 can inherit all they expected to inherit
:38:11. > :38:15.from their parent who is have ?2 million and ?3 million - defend
:38:16. > :38:20.that! Already paying a huge amount on inheritance tax. No you're not.
:38:21. > :38:25.You are, it's already far too high. We'd like to abolish inheritance tax
:38:26. > :38:29.as well. Don't avoid the issue, why should people on ?11,000 of income
:38:30. > :38:34.pay to protect the inheritance of people who have millions? Because
:38:35. > :38:38.they too eventually will have to rely on the same need and care. It's
:38:39. > :38:44.the job of the state. We pay taxes, it's our job to look after people.
:38:45. > :38:48.2% in the polls. Last time I looked we were 4%. Well, things can only
:38:49. > :38:52.get better. How is the campaign going? It's really gotten started
:38:53. > :38:55.today with the manifesto. Why did you take so long to get the
:38:56. > :39:03.manifesto out? We planned to have it yesterday. Exactly, why did you take
:39:04. > :39:07.so long? Were you a slow writer? Paul's diary has to be considered as
:39:08. > :39:12.well. That came into it. I would have liked to have got it out early.
:39:13. > :39:17.He's a busy fellow. What would success look like in this election
:39:18. > :39:21.for you? I would like to see our vote sharehold up. There would be a
:39:22. > :39:25.couple of seats where we could get a Member of Parliament. Which ones?
:39:26. > :39:31.Tim Acre is standing in Thurrock. Long shot? He's very hard-working,
:39:32. > :39:35.Tim, and he's got a very high and good reputation there. He's as well
:39:36. > :39:42.known, if not better than the local MP. Paul Nuttall in Boston? Yes,
:39:43. > :39:49.again, we came a close second in 2015, so I've not been up to Boston
:39:50. > :39:54.yet to campaign. Got slaughtered in Bootle. Mr Corbyn said he only ever
:39:55. > :39:57.supported the peace process, not the IRA, what do you say to that? OK,
:39:58. > :40:01.he's been saying that for a long time.
:40:02. > :40:10.Our splendid fellow! Anything else you care to add, Mr
:40:11. > :40:14.Johnson? The peace process was because the IRA had recognised that
:40:15. > :40:18.the bullet wasn't going to get them. And partly, by the way, going back
:40:19. > :40:21.to the intelligence point, partly because they were so riddled with
:40:22. > :40:26.Britishant agents that they could not go on.
:40:27. > :40:35.All right. Campaign back in full swing tomorrow and you will be
:40:36. > :40:38.looking forward to it. Absolutely. Don't be over-Crombie enthusiasm.
:40:39. > :40:40.Suzanne Evans thank you very much. Thank you.
:40:41. > :40:43.Now, it's not what you say, it's the way that you say it.
:40:44. > :40:46.Unless you work for the American intelligence services,
:40:47. > :40:49.in which case we'd rather you didn't say anything at all or we'll have
:40:50. > :40:53.No general election can boast a Socratic dialogue but the election
:40:54. > :40:56.of 2017 has been a notable linguistic wasteland,
:40:57. > :40:59.dominated by repetition without hesitation or deviation.
:41:00. > :41:02.So, in a week where many of us struggled to find the right words,
:41:03. > :41:10.it was only fitting that we put language in this week's Spotlight.
:41:11. > :41:26.This is the place in our hearts, in our homes, because this
:41:27. > :41:29.is the place that's a part of our bones because Manchester
:41:30. > :41:34.gives us such strength from the fact that this is THE place.
:41:35. > :41:39.And in a week of unimaginable horror, some people think even
:41:40. > :41:41.Donald Trump managed to get his language right.
:41:42. > :41:47.I won't call them monsters because they would like that term,
:41:48. > :41:52.they would think that's a great name.
:41:53. > :42:00.Back here on the campaign trail, Ukip's Paul Nuttall was unapologetic
:42:01. > :42:08.I was criticised by certain sections of the media for calling radical
:42:09. > :42:13.Islam a cancer in our society following the Westminster attack.
:42:14. > :42:23.What about those catchphrases politicians like to use -
:42:24. > :42:37.Can they be thrown back in your face when things don't
:42:38. > :42:42.Doesn't this show that you're really weak and wobbly,
:42:43. > :42:46.Jan Raven spends her life impersonating other people.
:42:47. > :42:49.I have always been strong and stable, strong and stable
:42:50. > :42:54.But when leave won, I strongly and stably changed my mind
:42:55. > :43:03.So she should know a thing or two about words.
:43:04. > :43:12.Welcome back. Thank you very much. What do you think of the language in
:43:13. > :43:16.this election campaign, has it given you new material? Yes. As you
:43:17. > :43:21.rightly say, the rhetoric seems to have gone out of the window and been
:43:22. > :43:26.totally replaced by repetition. It's almost like they've taken a leaf out
:43:27. > :43:32.of Trump's book, you know, "it's going to be great, it's twoing to be
:43:33. > :43:38.great", "strong and stable" and "I like to get out and about", it's
:43:39. > :43:41.like she says it that much people may start to believe it. She's
:43:42. > :43:47.backtracked on Brexit and calling the election. I love the idea she
:43:48. > :43:52.says, I like to get out and about and see ordinary working people
:43:53. > :43:58.being shoved aside by my security staff. Hermetically sealed area. And
:43:59. > :44:04.being told not to look me directly in the eye because I am like a Grgon
:44:05. > :44:09.me due Sa in reverse, if people look me in the eye, I go rigid. She seems
:44:10. > :44:13.to be someone that belongs in the Westminster bubble and she's trying
:44:14. > :44:25.to portray herself as a person getting out and about -- Gorgn
:44:26. > :44:32.Medusa. The only thing you can say about strong and stable is the ill
:44:33. > :44:36.litration. I love what she said to you which was that Jeremy Corbyn
:44:37. > :44:40.sneaking into Ten Downing Street and sort of portraying Jeremy Corbyn as
:44:41. > :44:44.a sort of bogey man with a bag of swag, you know, with a mask. As if
:44:45. > :44:50.he could get in without the people actually voting. Exactly, yes. What
:44:51. > :44:53.will get him into Downing Street will be people voting but she was
:44:54. > :45:04.saying he could sneak in. With swag. Yes. Exactly. I think she kind of
:45:05. > :45:08.doesn't... She seems to have this tension the whole time in everything
:45:09. > :45:13.she says. There's this tension in the way she holds her face and in
:45:14. > :45:19.the way her mouth is, she wants to smile but the rest of her face won't
:45:20. > :45:21.let her. This tension seems to come from embarrassment about what she's
:45:22. > :45:33.got to say. Funnily enough, the only time when I
:45:34. > :45:38.saw she didn't have quite that tension in her face and mouth was
:45:39. > :45:44.when she was making the speech after Manchester, when it was actually a
:45:45. > :45:49.very heartfelt speech, and very well constructed. Whether she wrote it or
:45:50. > :45:55.not. It was totally different, and not just these catchphrases. And she
:45:56. > :46:01.actually came across much better for it. The tension could be due to
:46:02. > :46:07.tension. She may be very nervous. Let's come back to the language of
:46:08. > :46:13.the campaign, which has been pretty dire, has it not? Well, each party
:46:14. > :46:17.is setting out to win. I think I made this point before, but an
:46:18. > :46:20.election campaign is not for your entertainment. I know you want it to
:46:21. > :46:26.be for the entertainment of journalists. If it is not for my
:46:27. > :46:31.entertainment, what is the point? The point is to win. She thinks this
:46:32. > :46:34.will get through to people, and on the whole it has been quite
:46:35. > :46:42.effective. Have you seen what has been happening in the polls? Let me
:46:43. > :46:47.tell you why. It is because Labour candidates are saying, Jeremy Corbyn
:46:48. > :46:51.will not win. You have no reason to fear that whatsoever. You should
:46:52. > :46:56.vote for Labour candidates so that the Conservative majority will not
:46:57. > :47:00.be too great. Supposing that really produced a position where Jeremy
:47:01. > :47:06.Corbyn one, then he would have snuck in. But the language being used by
:47:07. > :47:14.Labour candidates is just as manipulative as the Tory language.
:47:15. > :47:19.When was the general election where there were flights of rhetoric that
:47:20. > :47:28.you remember? I can remember going back to Wilson, who had some great
:47:29. > :47:33.lines. What were they? He was responding to hecklers. This is
:47:34. > :47:39.where Wilson was at his element. Don't throw him out, he's just about
:47:40. > :47:43.to learn something. Was that a Yorkshire accent? You could have
:47:44. > :47:51.fooled me. I hear you do a good impression of Diane. Well, Diane
:47:52. > :47:54.Abbott, Andrew, talking about language, basically, Diane will just
:47:55. > :48:01.do any words that she can remember at the time, and you will be lucky
:48:02. > :48:08.if there are any of them. Would you like my calculator, Diane? Don't.
:48:09. > :48:13.Stop it. We will know who to come to if she can't make it.
:48:14. > :48:16.That's your lot for tonight, folks, but not for us.
:48:17. > :48:18.We're celebrating the start of campaigning - again -
:48:19. > :48:26.It's the Ukip manifesto sun-bed launch party and it's not
:48:27. > :48:28.for the feint hearted.....Michael and Alan are following UKIP's advice
:48:29. > :48:32.and going in their underpants to make sure they get their full fix
:48:33. > :49:01.Nighty night, don't let the Donald's weird and wonderful world tour bite.
:49:02. > :49:07.# It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it
:49:08. > :49:10.# It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it
:49:11. > :49:21.# It ain't what you do, it's the time that you do it
:49:22. > :49:42.# It ain't what you do, it's the place that you do it