Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - AU
The Guardian - AU
Politics
Andrew Sparrow (now) and Claire Phipps (earlier)

General election 2017: ITV hosts first leaders' debate – as it happened

ITV debate - Verdict

There’s a reason why PMQs attracts so much interest at Westminster, even though the quality of “debate” is often poor. It’s because, when the prime minister and the leader of the opposition are speaking, there’s a hinge that connects the arguments to decisions that get taken, things that happen, stuff that matters etc. The PM and opposition leader have to defend what they do, and so whether they can defend it or not convincingly actually counts.

But if the people who are engaged in a political debate don’t have that sort of authority, even if they speak with the wit and intellect of characters from an Aaron Sorkin drama, it is not going to have the same edge. And no one would confuse what happened tonight with a Sorkin script.

Which is a round-about way of saying it was all a bit dull, and it does not really matter. In fact, I’m not quite sure why I’m still here.

But, since I am, three concluding thoughts.

First, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn deserve no credit for not turning up and, in so far as people take a view (which is probably not much), it will be negative. When Leanne Wood said May was scared to show up, that sounded melodramatic, although the ITV viewers’ panel apparently liked it. (See 8.22pm.) When Tim Farron said at the end she was taking people for granted, he sounded as if he had a point.

Second, the women were generally better than the men. Nicola Sturgeon, Caroline Lucas and Wood all put in strong performances. Farron’s theatrics and argument-by-anecdote (presumably he was coached) got the thumbs down from the press (see 9.32pm), but he may have gone down well with less jaded observers.

And, third, Paul Nuttall floundered. Probably the only thing anyone will remember from tonight is that twice he called Leanne Wood “Natalie”. Ukip already poll worse with women than with men, and this may help to explain why. But it wasn’t just that; his attempts to reduce everything to immigration became borderline comic, and provoked some effective mockery from the others. (See 8.46pm and 9.08pm.) Ukip are having a terrible election and earlier today an Ipsos MORI poll showed them being overtaken by the Greens for the first time in some years. Tonight Nuttall did not do anything much to help.

That’s all from me.

Thanks for the comments.

Updated

ITV debate - Severin Carrell's analysis

The ITV leaders debate has exposed the patchwork, oddly shaped nature of the UK’s political system. The only two party leaders with a realistic chance of becoming prime minister, Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, have declined to appear – further highlighting the weakness of this format, in which the speakers spent much of the debate virtue-signalling, untested.

We had leaders of two nationalist parties whose candidates only stand in small parts of the UK, in Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish National party, and Leanne Wood from the Welsh nationalists Plaid Cymru. Yet neither are candidates in the election. Tim Farron of the Liberal Democrats, Caroline Lucas of the English Greens and Paul Nuttall of Ukip are standing, yet none has a realistic chance of being in the next government. The Greens will likely end with one MP, in Lucas. Ukip are likely to end with none at all.

Only Nuttall, the one outsider among the five, was directly challenged over his policies. Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, is the only one of the five who has served in government. Yet her 10 years in power in Edinburgh was not under direct scrutiny in this debate, facing an audience in Salford that can never vote for her. Likewise Wood.

Sturgeon made assertions on Scotland’s economy for which there is no evidence, implying that the SNP’s policy of lifting 100,000 small businesses out of paying business rates has helped the economy. The Scottish government has never tested the benefits of that policy for the Scottish economy, which is on the cusp of official recession.

Clearly aware of this, Sturgeon had the insight to qualify her own answers – confirming how odd this debate really was. Keenly aware that her government’s patchy record on education is a fierce topic of debate in Scotland, she said: “Nothing is more important to me than education, where there are some challenges we are working really hard to address.”

Unprovoked, she said the same about housing: “We’ve got challenges; we’ve not done everything right.” It is quite unclear what meaningful impact this programme will have on the final outcome of the election on 8 June.

Updated

ITV debate - Verdict from the Twitter commentariat

This is what political journalists and commentators are saying about the debate on Twitter. Those who are expressing an opinion - many seem to have taken the John Rentoul line, and concluded it was a waste of time.

In so far as you can draw any conclusions these responses, Caroline Lucas probably “won”.

From the Guardian’s Gaby Hinsliff

From Sunday Post’s Andrew Picken

From the Sun’s Steve Hawkes

From Open Democracy’s Anthony Barnett

From ITV’s Joke Pike

From the Telegraph’s Liam Halligan

From the former Sunday Post journalist James Millar

From Sky’s Darren McCaffrey

From the Mirror’s Ben Glaze

The Sun’s Steve Hawkes also thinks it was wrong for the Tory and Labour press offices to start commenting on the debate on Twitter when they were not willing to take part.

And ITV’s political editor Robert Peston agrees.

Here is more from ITV’s Chris Ship, who was watching the debate with what was in effect a mini focus group.

Final statements

They are now on final statements.

Nuttall says the other party leaders do not believe in Brexit. They do not believe we are big enough or good enough to be a free country on the international stage. If you believe that immigration should be cut, and aid reduced, then please go out and vote Ukip. We can put the great back into Britain.

Lucas says she is asking people to vote Green because this is about you, and it is about standing up for our values of “openness, cooperation and compassion”. We face challenges to our climate, which we have not discussed enough tonight. We can build a more confident future. Vote Green on 8 June8, she says.

Farron says there is a vision of a better Britain worth fighting for. The fact that Theresa May is not here tonight tells you she is taking you for granted. You need someone who will step up for you. This is a country worth fighting for, she says.

Wood says Plaid’s values and principles are of value wherever you are. Neither Theresa May nor Labour will have Wales as a priority. That is why we need a strong team of Plaid MPs, to defend Wales and make Wales matter.

Sturgeon says a strong SNP voice at Westminster matters. The Tory government is increasingly in hoke to Ukip. To people outside Scotland she would say the SNP will always work for strong, progressive values. And to those in Scotland, she says the SNP will stand up for the country and make it the best it can be.

And that’s it.

A summary and verdict coming up soon.

Updated

Farron says he promised that he would not vote to put up tuition fees. He kept his promise he says. (He voted against the tuition fees increase, even though his party backed it.)

Nuttall says there are far too many students going to university. Last year 46% of students ended up in a non-graduate job. He says if they did that, they would be able to afford to get rid of tuition fees.

Nuttall says the English are paying for housing in Scotland. Sturgeon points out that the Scots pay taxes too

This is from the former Times journalist Andrew Clark.

Question 5 - Young people

Q: What would you do to benefit young people?

Sturgeon says they do a lot in Scotland, where they don’t have tuition fees. Having a strong economy is key, she says.

Wood says she wants to see welfare cuts that disadvantage young people should be reversed.

Farron says one in three young people leave Cumbria, where he lives, despite it being the most beautiful place on earth, because house prices are too high. We should build more, he says.

He says young people voted to stay in the EU. He will stand up for them, and would give them a final say on Brexit in a second referendum.

Farron’s habit of answering questions with a personal reference is attracting a lot of wry comment from the journalists watching.

(We’ve heard several times already.)

Farron is also doing a lot of staring at the camera.

Wood says selection does not work. You have winners and losers. She says in Wales she will oppose grammar schools for as long as she draws breath.

On class sizes, she says she is not aware of evidence showing that they make a different to outcomes. The quality of the teaching is more important, she says.

Sturgeon says she thinks both are important.

She says she is not an expert on the English education. But she was aghast to hear Theresa May say she would find more money for schools by, literally, taking food out of the mouths of children. She will protect free school meals in Scotland, she says.

Nuttall says he believes in academic selection, and he always has done. We need more grammar schools, he says. There are only 164. The problem is they are in middle-class areas.

Lucas says the Greens want to scrap SATs and let teachers focus on teachers. “Let kids be kids and let teachers teach,” she says.

Farron’s aides have posted this clip on Twitter.

Question 4 - Education

Q: I am a primary school teacher. What would you do to support teachers in school so every child gets the best education?

Farron says he is a father of four. Nothing is more important to him. And we are just a few weeks away from a time when head teachers will have to dismiss staff because of lack of funding. He says we need a government that allows teachers to get on with the job.

Nuttall says it is a scandal that about 500,000 pupils go to schools with more than 30 pupils to a class. Teachers are overwhelmed with paperwork, he says.

Lucas says she is still recovering from the shock of finding there is one thing she agrees with Nuttall on; they both think HS2 will be a disaster.

Nuttall says after Brexit we will be able to sign free trade deal with America.

And accept hormone-filled beef, says Wood. Why not, asks Nuttall.

Natalie Bennett, the former Green leader, is glad to learn that she has made an impression on Paul Nuttall.

Nuttall says rents are high because we are not building enough houses.

You will need migrant labour, Farron tells him.

Not if we train enough people, says Nuttall.

Sturgeon asks him if he knows what the unemployment rate is.

Nuttall says living standards are low because immigration is driving down wages.

Wood says it is outrageous that public sector workers are having to go to food banks.

Farron says he remembers seeing poverty when he was brought up in Preston.

He says it was a mark of good parenting that he only realised they were brought up poor afterwards.

He says this taught him that government must not take people for granted.

Updated

The Labour and Lib Dem press teams are rowing about the debate on Twitter.

This is from Labour.

And this is the Lib Dem response.

Question 3 - Cost of living

Q: Prices are going up, rent and bills are increasing, but wages and benefits are not going up. What would you do about it?

Nuttall says Ukip wants to put more money in people’s pockets. It would cut VAT on fuel, and scrap the green levy, which increases energy bills, he says.

Farron says he has a long-term economic plan. It is called staying in the single market.

Lucas says we can learn a lot from Scotland, where they have free personal care.

Nuttall says he agrees with “Natalie”. But he was referring to Wood, and she corrects him. She suggests he is not very good with women’s names.

Sturgeon says we should not be taking resources from some of the poorest people in the world. And we don’t do this just to help them. We spend money on aid to make the world safer.

But the question for Nuttall is, if you cut immigration, where are the NHS staff going to come from, she asks.

Nuttall says Ukip would not block all immigration. They would have a one in, one out policy, she says.

You are talking about people, Sturgeon tells him.

Farron joins in, and says he is also opposed to taking money from the poorest people on earth.

Here is the BBC’s Philip Sim on the CCHQ Twitter output. See 8.16am. He has a point ...

Lucas says the Greens would get rid of the nuclear weapons programme. That would release £110bn over the next 30 years. Some of that money would go into the NHS, she says.

She criticises Farron and the Lib Dems for backing the Health and Social Care Act, which allows more private involvement in the NHS.

Farron says most of the extension of private care into the NHS happened under Labour.

Lucas and Farron both make a point of thanking the questioner for her service to the NHS. Farron says the Lib Dems would raise income tax to fund extra money for the NHS.

Sturgeon also thanks the questioner. She says the SNP has put more money into health and they abolished hospital car parking charges in 2008.

Updated

Question 2 - NHS and social care

Q: [From an 82-year-old former nurse] I am extremely concerned about the funding of health and social care. What will you do about this?

Etchingham points out that health is a devolved issued, so the governments in Scotland and Wales are in charge of what happens there.

Wood says we should pay for health and social care from taxation. The wealthiest should stump up a bit more, she says.

Nuttall says we are a growing population. Immigration plays a large part of that. If we continue on the track we are on, it will reach 80bn by the half of this century.

Ukip would put more money into hospitals, and £1.4bn into social care. It would take that by cutting the aid budget to 0.2% of GDP – what it was in the US under Barack Obama.

Updated

This is from my colleague Gaby Hinsliff.

This is from the Daily Mail’s John Stevens.

And this is from the SNP’s Hannah Bardell.

Lucas says Nuttall’s suggestion that all problems are caused by immigrants is “outrageous”.

Nuttall says calling for a second referendum, as Lucas suggest, is “all very European Union”. This is what they do in the EU.

But that is not acceptable, he says. We are leaving. “Tim can cry about it all he wants.”

Wood asks Nuttall if he really thinks people voted to leave their jobs. There is an Airbus factory in Deeside employing 6,500 people. They will not stay if they have to pay tariffs.

As Nuttall starts to reply, Wood says: “I’m not Natalie [Bennett], I’m Leanne.”

Farron calls Nuttall “the ambassador for Theresa May”.

Nuttall says it was made clear during the EU referendum that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market. It is “downright duplicitous” to say otherwise, he says.

Farron says people like Nuttall went round saying the UK could have a Norway-type relationship with the EU. Nuttall does not accept that.

Lucas says Brexit will be catastrophic.

Sturgeon says people were influenced by the “lie” on the Vote Leave bus. She says an effort should have been made to find compromise afterwards.

ITV’s Chris Ship is watching the debate with 10 viewers - effectively, a focus group.

Sturgeon says she was at St Andrews university last week. It is one of the best universities in the world. But they are worried about Brexit, about losing students and funding and academics.

Theresa May is not here, but her spokesman, Paul Nuttall, is, she says.

She says she wants the future of EU nationals decided quickly.

Nuttall says he agrees that the future of EU nationals should be sorted soon.

He is not May’s spokesman, he says. He thinks she will backslide. He thinks she will do that over fishing, and over free movement.

Lucas says free movement is a wonderful thing. She wants her kids to be able to travel.

Nuttall says we should not be paying a Brexit bill.

Farron says that he has four children. He wants to be able to look them in the eye in the future and say he did everything to fight Brexit.

The Tories did not want to attend this debate, but they are actively getting involved on Twitter.

Lucas says we were not told what Brexit would be like. The Greens think people should have a say on the final result. And she says she feels very let down by Labour over Brexit.

Updated

Question 1 - Brexit

Q: If elected, how would your part negotiated a safe, beneficial worthwhile deal for Britain. And will it be better than what we have?

Wood says she wanted to stay in the EU, but she accepts the result. Only by electing Plaid MPs will you ensure Wales’ voice is heard.

Sturgeon says she campaigned passionately to stay in the EU. And she thinks Scotland should have a choice. But the priority now is the Brexit negotiation. Theresa May is pursuing a hard Brexit. Even today she it threatening to walk away with no deal. That would cause a catastrophe, she says. It would cost 80,000 Scottish jobs.

Updated

The leaders are making opening statements.

Caroline Lucas says she will be straight. Never in her lifetime has the future been so uncertain: Brexit, climate change and the NHS crisis. But when we come together, we can change things. We can stop 4m people living in poverty.

Leanne Wood says Plaid Cymru is all about Wales, but its vision can benefit people in all parts of the UK. The country faces real challenges. Plaid has a positive, post-Brexit plan. She has a message for the prime minister, who she is sure is watching. You are scared of facing a debate. That is weak leadership, Wood says. Those of us here will show you that real leadership is standing up for what you believe.

Nicola Sturgeon says Scotland needs MPs able to stand up for it at Westminster. It will stand up for jobs, and against an extreme Brexit. The next few years will determine the kind of country we become. We need strong opposition, standing up for tolerance and justice and community.

Paul Nuttall says there is only one party truly committed to the Brexit people voted for, where we are back in control of borders and our money. We should take back control of our fishing borders. Ukip is the only party committed to a policy of balanced migration. And it is committed to cutting the foreign aid budget which is costing £30m a day. And it wants the health service to be a national one, not an international one.

Tim Farron said he got into politics to fight, to stand up for people who take you for granted. He grew up in Preston, where people were taken for granted by heartless Tory government. The Britain he loves is not lost yet. If you care for our schools, do not give up. Do not turn your back on the world. The fight is not over.

Julie Etchingham opens the programme.

There were seven leaders here for the debate in 2015, she says. She says 7m people watched.

Five of those parties have changed leaders, she says.

She introduces the line-up. (See 7.44pm.)

Labour are not taking part in the debate, but they are in the spin room, according to Mohammed Shafiq.

This is from YouGov’s Joe Twyman.

ITV leaders' debate

The first proper leaders’ debate of the election will start soon, at 8pm. It is on ITV, and it will run for two hours. We will, of course, be covering it live.

There is a small hitch. Although it is being billed as the leaders’ debate, the two most important ones – the only two with any chance of being prime minister after 8 June – aren’t turning up. It is not just Hamlet without the prince, but without Claudius too. Theresa May declared that she would not take part in debates because she wanted to focus on campaigning, and because she thought people did not learn much from seeing politicians arguing with each other, and Jeremy Corbyn said he would take part in debates that did not involve May.

But there are five other leaders who were invited who are turning up: Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader and Scottish first minister; Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader; Leanne Wood, the Plaid Cymru leader; Caroline Lucas, the co-leader of the Greens; and Paul Nuttall, the Ukip leader.

ITV told the Conservatives and Labour that it would not allow them to send substitutes.

The channel has also decided it will not “empty chair” the two no-shows. Or empty podium them, since the participants will be standing.

Updated

Afternoon summary

That’s all from me for the moment. If anything dramatic happens in the next 90 minutes or so, a colleague will step in.

Later, at 8pm, we have the ITV election leaders debate. Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn are not taking part, but Nicola Sturgeon, Tim Farron, Paul Nuttall, Leanne Wood and Caroline Lucas are all due and I will be covering it live.

This, from the Economist’s data team, is very good.

How party manifestos overlap.
How party manifestos overlap. Photograph: Economist

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the Tory plans for extra schools spending amount to a real-terms cut. This is from Luke Sibieta, the IFS’s associate director of education and skills.

Labour accuse Tories of making around 60 unfunded spending commitments

The Labour party went to great lengths to show that its spending commitments were funded. The Tories claimed to have identified some holes in the Labour accounts - some of their criticisms were spurious, some weren’t - but generally, when Labour announced a new policy, there was also a funding stream attached.

The same cannot be said of the Conservative document. It does not contain a costings section, and it says almost nothing about how plans will be funded.

To highlight this, Labour has released a press statement saying there are 60 spending commitments in the Conservative manifesto and that only one of them is costed (new offices for the British Business Bank, paid for by repatriated funds from the European Investment Fund.

Here is an extract from the Labour list.

Labour list of Tory spending commitments.
Labour list of Tory spending commitments. Photograph: Labour

And this is from John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor.

The Tories’ numbers don’t add up. They have published an 84 page blank cheque that provides a tax giveaway guarantee for big business, while offering a roll of the dice for working families with no commitments to rule out rises in income tax and national insurance.

Now we can see why Theresa May is running scared of debating Jeremy Corbyn, when she publishes a document like this that contains more questions than answers. It also further shows how her party has managed to add £700bn to the national debt since 2010, as they won’t be straight with the British people on how much their plans for a wealthy few truly cost.

One of the few revenue raisers they identified was withdrawing free school meals from children and withdrawing support for pensioners struggling to heat their homes – this just sums up the Tory approach.

This is the equivalent of the prime minister going to the shops with the nation’s cheque book and not checking the price of the goods as she puts them in the trolley.

The Labour document isn’t perfect. It includes items which don’t necessarily involve extra spending (eg, simplifying the tax system) and items which could cut spending, not increase it (eg, moving civil servants out of London). And some items are just peculiar; the list includes “£1bn to modernise prisons” and then asks (in the column on the right) “how much does this cost?” Around £1bn might be a good guess.

And this last point illustrates why an exercise like this may have little traction. All government have - and have to have - spending plans looking forward to the next five years and beyond. Many of the items on the Labour list refers to plans that are already in the pipeline. In so far as they look like spending commitments, people may assume that these are already priced in.

That is not to say that Labour gets a fair press. As Anoosh Chakelian writes in the New Statesman, a quick glance at how the papers have covered Theresa May’s plans to make pensioners pay more for social care, compared to how they covered Labour’s semi-equivalent proposals seven years ago, show that appalling double standards are operating. But it is not just a matter of the Tories being Tories. The fact that they are in government, and that they therefore determine baseline government spending, helps make it easier for them too.

Updated

The Women’s Equality party says the Tory manifesto plans will extend economic hardship for women. And it is particularly critical of the proposals on childcare. This is from Sophie Walker, the Women Equality party’s leader.

May is recycling the Tory promise of 30 hours’ free childcare for three- and four-year-olds, but focusing only on working parents ‘who find it difficult to manage the costs of childcare’. This policy has been aggressively underfunded and has led to nurseries closing their doors. Good quality childcare demands investment.

We have demonstrated how this can be done. Our offer is 40 hours of free childcare, 48 weeks of the year, for all children from the end of shared parental leave until they start school. This is a policy that works.

Tories plan to merge Serious Fraud Office with National Crime Agency

Buried in Theresa May’s manifesto is a commitment to merge the Serious Fraud Office with the National Crime Agency. It says:

We will strengthen Britain’s response to white collar crime by incorporating the Serious Fraud Office into the National Crime Agency, improving intelligence sharing and bolstering the investigation of serious fraud, money laundering and financial crime.

The idea has reportedly been on her to-do list for some time.

Reaction from anti-corruption groups and specialist lawyers has thus far been uniformly negative. Stephen Parkinson, the head of criminal litigation at Kingsley Napley, said:

This is a dreadful decision. The NCA does not have the capability or the expertise to investigate complex, serious fraud, nor, I suspect, the desire. This is a real step back from the UK’s commitment to tackle serious economic crime.

Robert Barrington, the executive director of the anti-corruption group Transparency International, warned the move would jeopardise the freedom from political interference that the SFO’s investigations enjoy:

The underlying concern is that this could be a crude attempt at either cost-saving or to neuter the Bribery Act so that the UK can increase its exports at the expense of the stability, security and economic development of our overseas trading partners.

An SFO spokesperson said: “This is a political pledge and we cannot comment. The organisation of law enforcement is a matter for ministers.”

Updated

Theresa May visiting missiles and missile systems producer, MBDA, in Bolton, north west England, after her manifesto launch
Theresa May visiting missiles and missile systems producer, MBDA, in Bolton, north west England, after her manifesto launch Photograph: Dan Kitwood/AFP/Getty Images

The Conservative manifesto includes a proposal to overhaul voter registration laws by including a requirement for voters to show ID at polling stations, in order to crack down on election fraud.
The manifesto claims that the Tories will tackle every aspect of electoral fraud. “The British public deserves to have confidence in our democracy,” it states.

We will legislate to ensure that a form of identification must be presented before voting, to reform postal voting and to improve other aspects of the elections process to ensure that our elections are the most secure in the world.


But the policy is a controversial one, with evidence that strict voter ID rules in some US states have disproportionately disadvantaged poor and minority voters.

Furthermore, there is little evidence that electoral fraud is widespread in the UK, which has a system that is respected around the world, including by international monitoring organisations.

Labour has previously said that millions of people may be disenfranchised by the plans. In December, Cat Smith, Labour’s shadow minister for voter engagement, raised concerns that 7.5% of the electorate may not have the right kind of identification in order to exercise their right to vote.

Voter ID requirements were also criticised as a “sledgehammer to crack a nut” by the Electoral Reform Society, a pressure group campaigning for reform of the democratic system. “The government should think very carefully before introducing barriers to voting,” said its chief executive, Katie Ghose. “There is simply no evidence to suggest that electoral fraud is widespread across the UK. Where it has occurred it has been isolated and should be tackled locally.”

Updated

Tories drop pledge to halve disability employment gap

The Social Market Foundation thinktank has spotted another Tory 2015 manifesto pledge that has been dropped. Two years ago the manifesto included a commitment to halve the disability employment gap. That has gone, and instead the party is committed to getting 1 million more disabled people into employment.

Matthew Oakley, an SMF researcher, said:

It’s disappointing that the Conservatives have dropped their commitment to halving the disability employment gap. But given the cuts to employment support seen in the last parliament, it should come as no surprise.

The new pledge, to increase employment of disabled people by 1 million, is a weaker commitment than the one it replaces. Employment of non-disabled people could well increase by more than this over the same period, meaning that the employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people could actually increase.

Whoever the new government is needs to be serious about disability employment. The first step should be to reverse cuts to the specialist support available to help disabled people into work and do more to ensure that the benefits system supports people to get help when they experience the onset of physical or mental health conditions.

For more on 2015 Tory manifesto promises that have been dropped, see 3.07pm and 3.09pm.

UPDATE: The Tories have been in touch to say the manifesto does include plans to get more disabled people into the labour market. In particular, a spokesman cited this one in the manifesto:

We will also work to help those groups who have in the past found it difficult to get employment, by incentivising employers to take them on. So for businesses employing former wards of the care system, someone with a disability, those with chronic mental health problems, those who have committed a crime but who have repaid their debt to society, and those who have been unemployed for over a year, we will offer a holiday on their employers’ national insurance contributions for a full year

Updated

Here is comment from a Guardian panel on the manifesto, with contributions from Hugh Muir, Matthew d’Ancona, Faiza Shaheen,Anne Perkins and Kate Maltby.

And here is an extract from Matthew’s article.

Look too at the plans for social care. At the heart of this blueprint – already hugely controversial – is the belief that wealth in this country is radically undertaxed and that a citizens’ assets should be the key determinant in assessing how much they contribute towards their care, posthumously or otherwise.

It is hard to overstate what a break this represents with past Tory thinking. John Major spoke of “wealth cascading down the generations”. When George Osborne warmed to the idea of a mansion tax during the coalition years, Cameron stopped him in his tracks at once. Indeed, one his final flagship policies was to protect all properties worth up to £1m owned by couples from all inheritance tax.

Whatever else it may be, this manifesto is not a blank cheque for revolutionary neoliberalism or continuity Thatcherism. If you think you hate these proposals, imagine what rightwing MPs are thinking.

While the Conservative manifesto includes the easing of fracking rules and the capping of household energy bills there is a very significant omission – no mention at all of the fleet of new nuclear power stations the party has always previously backed.

The 2015 Tory manifesto promised “a significant expansion in new nuclear”. The new one promises nothing at all. The deal for a French-Chinese partnership to build the first new reactors in a generation at Hinkley Point in Somerset is signed. But vast costs of nuclear power are looking ever more expensive as renewables costs plummet and grids gets smarter at managing demand.

It may be that the serious financial woes at Toshiba, which has placed another proposed plant in jeopardy, was the final straw. The Tories may have realised that hiking energy bills to fund large subsidies to foreign state-owned companies is not the best way to power the UK.

Updated

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published a briefing on the Tory plan to get rid of the “triple lock” (ensuring the state pension rises every year by 2.5% or inflation or earnings, whichever is higher) and replace it with a “double lock” (ensuring they rise every year in line with inflation or earnings, whichever is higher). It says that the new policy does not make much difference to pensioners or the Treasury and that it “does little to resolve the pressures an ageing population will put on the public finances over the years to come.”

Impact of triple lock and double lock on state pension spending.
Impact of triple lock and double lock on state pension spending. Photograph: IFS

Ukip accuses Tories of 'biggest tax raid in history' on pensioners

Ukip are also attacking the Tories over their pensioner proposals. This is from Patrick O’Flynn, Ukip’s economics spokesman.

The Conservatives are planning to unleash the biggest tax raid in history on pensioner households. It is unbelievable that the elderly should be subjected to a new death tax by a party that pretends to defend their interests. Ukip will fight this just as hard as we are fighting Philip Hammond’s plan for a national insurance attack on the self-employed.

Corbyn accuses Tories of unleashing 'nasty party triple whammy' on pensioners

Jeremy Corbyn has accused the Tories of unleasing a “nasty party triple whammy” on pensioners with their manifesto plans. In a statement he said:

Millions of pensioners are betrayed by Theresa May’s manifesto. She is hitting older people with a classic nasty party triple whammy: Scrapping the triple lock on pensions, removing the winter fuel allowance and forcing those who need social care to pay for it with their homes.

The Conservatives’ record is one of broken promises and failure. They promised to raise living standards, but working families are set to be on average over £1,400 a year worse off. They promised to improve all standards of NHS care, but A&Es are in crisis. They promised to protect school spending, but schools are facing crippling cuts and class sizes are soaring. You can’t trust a word Theresa May says.

Despite Theresa May’s warm words, she leads a party that has created a rigged economy that only works for the super-rich. The Conservatives have not changed. While the Labour party has promised to protect low and middle earners from any tax rises, all Theresa May has promised is a cut to corporation tax for their big business friends. Unlike the Conservatives, Labour is standing up for the many, not the few.

Jeremy Corbyn leaving BBC Broadcasting House in London, after an appearance on the Jeremy Vine show earlier today.
Jeremy Corbyn leaving BBC Broadcasting House in London, after an appearance on the Jeremy Vine show earlier today. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA

The Tories appear to be fishing for votes in the Scottish Borders with the same zeal as an angler fishing for salmon on the Tweed. The party has a new manifesto pledge to create a major “Borderland” investment plan, for a region where the Tories are fighting to protect their only MP and hopefully secure at least one more.

Theresa May’s manifesto said:

Building on the city and growth deals we have signed across Scotland, we will bring forward a Borderlands Growth Deal, including all councils on both sides of the border, to help secure prosperity in southern Scotland.

By coincidence, the Scottish secretary, David Mundell is defending a slender 798 majority in Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, while John Lamont, a prominent ally of the Scottish Tory leader, Ruth Davidson, is fighting to unseat the Scottish National party’s Calum Kerr in Berwickshire, Roxbugh and Selkirk.

Kerr is protecting the smallest majority among Scotland’s 59 Commons seats, of 328 votes, and is widely expected to lose to Lamont, who is Tory MSP for the contiguous Holyrood seat.

No further details have yet emerged about the shape and value of the Borderlands offer, but in a party statement Mundell said:

From the Borders to the North Sea, this manifesto delivers for Scotland. It shows that a re-elected Conservative government will continue to ensure that Scotland benefits from its membership of the United Kingdom.

The SNP, which has itself faced Tory accusations of buying votes with Scottish government announcements before the council elections on 4 May, said it had reopened the Borders railway and was planning a new South of Scotland enterprise agency linked to the new city deal for Edinburgh.

Calum Kerr added:

The usual routine by the Tories is they announce these growth deals, put up a bit of the money and then rely on the Scottish government to stump up the rest.

Updated

The Conservative manifesto pledge to increase school funding in England gets a tepid response from Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders. He says:

We welcome any improvement to school funding, but unfortunately the Conservative pledge of a £4bn boost includes a large element of sleight of hand. The schools budget would have to increase by about £2.8bn in any case because the pupil population will rise by 490,000 by 2022. So, the “extra” money is in fact just over £1bn, which is not enough to counteract the rising costs which are hitting schools and will amount to £3bn a year by 2020.

Barton is also unimpressed by the promise to revive grammar schools and selection.

The evidence we have seen does not support the premise that the further expansion of selection will improve education for the majority of young people. The evidence indicates that it will have a damaging impact on the life chances of the majority who do not attend a selective school.

Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, has done his own analysis of how the Tory manifesto differs from the 2015 one. He says he has identified 12 promises that have been dropped.

How the Tory manifesto differs from David Cameron's - Analysis

The headlines will focus on the Conservatives abandoning triple lock protection for pensions and an end to David Cameron’s “tax lock” promise of no increase in income tax, national insurance or VAT.

But what else has changed in the small print between today’s Tory manifesto and David Cameron’s two years ago?

On child poverty

Tory manifesto 2015: We will work to eliminate child poverty

Tory manifesto 2017: We want to reduce child poverty

What it means: Four million of our children are living below the official poverty line and the IFS projects the number will pass 5 million by 2020. That demands a muscular response. But the Conservatives have abolished the child poverty unit which has been subsumed into the DWP. This looks like no muscular response on the rising numbers will be forthcoming.

On balancing the budget

Tory manifesto 2015: Deliver a balanced structural current budget in 2017-18

Tory manifesto 2017: “A balanced budget by the middle of the next decade”

What it means: A far less specific commitment, and ten years later than George Osborne promised.

On the Human Rights Act

Tory manifesto 2015: Scrap the Human Rights Act and curtail the role of the European Court of Human Rights, so that foreign criminals can be more easily deported from Britain

Tory manifesto 2017: We will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes. We will remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of the next parliament.

What it means: Another ditching of a flagship Cameron pledge, and a promise May made during her leadership campaign to remain signatories to the ECHR. A U-turn maybe, but one that will be welcomed by many progressives.

On defence

Tory manifesto 2015: We will maintain the size of the regular armed services and not reduce the army to below 82,000.

Tory manifesto 2017: We will maintain the overall size of the armed forces, including an army that is capable of fielding a war-fighting division.

What it means: No numbers here, because the Conservatives have failed to meet this pledge, the numbers are currently 78,500. Defence secretary Michael Fallon has been regularly castigated in TV interviews about the figure.

On prosperity

Tory manifesto 2015: We will pursue our ambition to become the most prosperous major economy in the world by the 2030s

Tory manifesto 2017: It doesn’t appear

What it means: This was a key pledge by George Osborne as a case for deficit reduction. The UK is the fifth largest economy in the world though it slipped to sixth below France in the direct aftermath of Brexit. With such economic uncertainty surrounding the Brexit negotiations, it seems unsurprising this has been quietly dropped.

On rail travel

Tory manifesto 2015: We will keep commuter rail fares frozen in real terms for the whole of the next Parliament

Tory manifesto 2017: It doesn’t appear

What it means: It means rail fares could rise above inflation under the Tories. Labour has pledged to renationalise the rail network, prompted in part by rising fares.

On Heathrow

Tory manifesto 2015: We will deliver on our National Infrastructure Plan and respond to the Airports Commission’s final report.

Tory manifesto 2017: We will continue our programme of strategic national investments, including High Speed 2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and the expansion of Heathrow Airport

What it means: Heathrow’s third runway is going ahead and Conservative candidates in seats where they at risk against anti-Heathrow Lib Dems will have to explain that on the south west London doorsteps. Among them will be Zac Goldsmith, standing again for the Tories in Richmond Park after quitting and sparking a by-election to protest the decision, which he subsequently lost to Lib Dem Sarah Olney.

Updated

Protestors outside the venue in Halifax, West Yorkshire, after Theresa May launched the party manifesto.
Protestors outside the venue in Halifax, West Yorkshire, after Theresa May launched the party manifesto. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA

Tories promise to review honours system

One small element of the Conservative manifesto promises to examine the method for selecting people for honours. It says:

We will review the honours system to make sure it commands public confidence, rewards genuine public service and that recipients uphold the integrity of the honours bestowed.

While there is no further explanation of what this will involve, it follows briefings from those around May that she wanted to move the system away from giving knighthoods and other gongs to civil servants and former special advisers, instead rewarding more people outside Westminster, particularly those who assist social mobility.

It follows controversy about the last two lists of honours. David Cameron’s resignation list brought recognition to a series of No 10 and Tory party staffers, and the New Year’s collection – in part drawn up under Cameron – had awards for a series of senior officials.

What the promised review of the system will actually bring remains to be seen. But it shows May remains keen on the idea.

Updated

All that speculation about how the Conservative manifesto was going to be unusually short turned out to be wrong, the Press Association’s Ian Jones points out.

No mention of air pollution in Tory manifesto

The manifesto made no mention of air pollution, which MPs have described as a public health emergency. The Tories commit to investing £600m by 2020 to pursue a desire for “almost every car and van” to be zero-emissions by 2050, but they make no mention of pollution from diesel vehicles and the 40,000 premature deaths each year from air pollution.

There is no mention either of tax changes to support the public to ditch their diesel cars in favour of less polluting alternatives, or a diesel scrappage scheme.

David Timms, from Friends of the Earth, said:

The lack of policies to deal with the dirty air crisis is astounding. Polluting car manufacturers will sleep easy knowing that they have been let off the hook, while children with asthma will continue to choke. This is a national disgrace which can’t be hidden behind planting a few trees.

The one mention of air quality is a commitment to planting one million trees in towns and cities.

Updated

Cabinet ministers in the audience as Theresa May delivered her speech at the Tory manifesto launch.
Cabinet ministers in the audience as Theresa May delivered her speech at the Tory manifesto launch. Photograph: POOL/Reuters

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s World at One, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, welcomed the Tories’ decision to drop their pledge not to put up income tax, national insurance or VAT. He told the programme:

You saw the trouble the chancellor got into during the budget when he wanted to make a relatively modest change to one bit of the national insurance system. I don’t think this means they are looking for big increases in income tax and national insurance, though perhaps they might, but I do think it means they will want some flexibility to change for example the rates of national insurance for self-employed people. And some flexibility to respond if the public finances need it.

Time after time when governments have had promises not to raise rates of income tax and so they have just continually broken those promises. It is rather better not to make the promise rather than make the promise and then break it, or what’s even worse make the promise, and then get the country into trouble because you don’t feel you can break.

Johnson described the document as a “largely a steady as she goes kind of manifesto”.

Updated

Tories propose to create 'sustainable business model' for quality online media

The Conservative manifesto includes the tantalising promise of creating a “sustainable business model for high-quality media online”. The industry as a whole had thus far failed to definitively answer the digital question and the Tories pledge to create a level playing field online for media and creative companies. “We will ensure content creators are appropriately rewarded for the content they make available online,” the manifesto says.

The Tories have also pledged to introduce a levy on social media companies to fund awareness and “preventative activity” relating to issues such as inappropriate online content. May has also promised to clamp down on data gathering by social media companies with a ban on keeping information about young people.

Further pleasing many newspaper editors, the Tories will not seek to proceed with a second judge-led inquiry into press misbehaviour, or Leveson 2, which was to investigate the relationship between the press and the police. The manifesto also states that the Tories will repeal a controversial law, called article 40, that could have forced publishers to pay the costs of the people who sue them, even if they win.

The manifesto also confirms that Channel 4 will be forced to move out of London. The state-owned broadcaster, which has a £100m headquarters in Victoria, London, has been the subject of a relocation review with Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds considered frontrunners for a new base.

Updated

Tories propose student loan 'forgiveness' for new teachers

The Tory manifesto will mean sleepless nights for university vice-chancellors. Their hopes have been dashed, with students still to be counted in immigration statistics and a further crackdown on student visas promised.

On top of that, universities in England wanting to raise the top rate of tuition fees – which is all of them – will have to sponsor a free school or academy to qualify. And the manifesto promises a major review of funding across tertiary education to improve access, which could see higher education have to compete against its more cost-effective further education peers.

In the schools sector in England, the manifesto, as expected, pledges a revival of grammar schools – although it avoids the phrase in favour of “selective schools” – and redirects £1bn to schools to smooth over losses caused by the new national funding formula. That will be largely be funded by scrapping universal free school meals for infants, an unloved policy.

The eye-catching promise to help solve the shortage of teachers is an offer for student loans “forgiveness” for new teachers, in order to retain them within the profession. But there are no details of how any forgiveness would work in practice.

There are also pledges to continue toughening up the school curriculum, and the vague threat of further school “accountability” at key stage three – the period between the national tests at the end of primary school and the start of GCSEs. Previously 14-year-olds were tested, but that was ended by Labour in 2009.

Updated

The Conservative party campaign battlebus parked at Dean Clough Mills for the launch of the manifesto.
The Conservative party campaign battlebus parked at Dean Clough Mills for the launch of the manifesto. Photograph: Ian Forsyth/Getty Images

Labour says the Conservative manifesto is just offering most working people and pensioners more insecurity. This is from Andrew Gwynne, the party’s co elections coordinator.

Behind the rhetoric, this is a manifesto that offers the majority of working people and pensioners insecurity with a huge question mark over their living standards.

The tax guarantee they previously made is gone. While they’ll guarantee corporation tax falls to 17p they’re dropping their promise not to raise income tax and National Insurance contributions, raising the spectre of tax rises on lower and middle incomes. No wonder they’ve dropped their previous promise to raising living standards and the phrase “living standards” doesn’t appear at all.

This manifesto is proof the Tories are ditching any claim to stand up for older people. Pensioners stand to lose the pension guarantee in the next parliament, the winter fuel allowance is being hacked away at and their social care plans could see those who need care forced to pay for it with their homes.

For our public services – slashed back by the Tories – there’s nothing but insecurity in these plans. They’ve failed to match Labour’s commitment on education and there’s no detail other than a vague promise on giving the NHS funding – a promise they made in the past and broke.

The Tories stand up only for the few. For the many they offer the prospect of five years of insecurity.

Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, told the BBC that the spending plans in the Conservative manifesto would probably not require much extra tax.

While there is not an absolute promise not to increase income tax or national insurance, what you have got is a pretty modest set of proposals which probably isn’t going to require terribly much in the way of tax increases.

If you look at the Labour party proposals, they have costed out their spending proposals at a pretty big £75bn. To be clear, £75bn is a very, very big number indeed, and they have promised £50n of tax rises.

The big difference is that from the Labour party we have a much bigger state, much more spending, much more tax. In the Conservative manifesto we have much more small-c conservatism. There isn’t a lot more spending or a lot more tax.

He also said the Tories have left themselves “wriggle room” by keeping the target date of 2025 for eliminating the deficit.

Updated

If you have been watching Sky News this morning, you may have heard Adam Boulton say that the Tories are limiting its access to cabinet ministers. Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, would not speak to them, although he has done other broadcast interviews today, and so Sky had to show a clip from a BBC interview with Hunt instead.

What’s going on? It is understood that advisers to Theresa May were particularly annoyed when Boulton speculated about the prime minister’s health as it became apparent that she was to make a statement outside Downing Street – the one she used to make the surprise announcement about the general election.

Boulton infuriated May’s co-chief of staff, Fiona Hill, by claiming there were rumours that the prime minister, who has type-1 diabetes, could be suffering from ill health and about to respond.

He then further angered Hill, who herself used to work at Sky News, by reading out a message she had sent. “You might want to tell Bunter that he should watch what he is saying about my boss’s health, utterly unfounded and untrue.”

Advisers were said to be angry about a story from Sky’s senior political correspondent, Beth Rigby, which claimed cabinet ministers had said that the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, would be sidelined during the campaign.

Adam Boulton.
Adam Boulton. Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian

Updated

Jeremy Corbyn has been on the Jeremy Vine show on BBC Radio 2 this lunchtime. He told Vine that Labour would not immediately impose the 45p in the pound tax rate for those earning more than £80,000 if it won the election. The increase would be introduced gradually, he said

Speaking about the new tax rate for people in this group, he said:

I’m not saying how much they are going to actually have to pay straight away, we will put it up during the parliament.

A copy of the Conservative Party general election manifesto.
A copy of the Conservative Party general election manifesto. Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images

What Tory plans to increase NHS spending would mean - analysis

The government’s schedule of year-on-year funding increases for the NHS in England, drawn up while David Cameron was still prime minister, was due to run until 2020-21. That involves the question that has caused Theresa May persistent political difficulty – that is, whether the real amount of extra cash involved was the £8bn George Osborne pledged in the 2015 election campaign or the £10bn figure May has used repeatedly, despite health thinktanks, the Commons health select committee and NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens all saying that it isn’t true. So the Conservatives had to come up with a lightly extended version of that plan – some new numbers – given the new parliament will sit until 2022 and that Labour and the Lib Dems have pledged significant extra NHS funding.

May’s response is a pledge that “we will increase NHS spending by a minimum of £8bn in real terms over the next five years, delivering an increase in real funding per head of the population for every year of the parliament”. But the manifesto provides no other detail. It doesn’t say, for example, how much of the £8bn by 2022 is already included in the previous funding plan - ie, how much over and above what was already planned the NHS will get.

However, it does mean that May is ripping up the health budgetary plans she inherited from Cameron/Osborne by pledging, in effect, more money than planned in both next year and 2019-20 too. Those are the two years that - as Stevens had publicly pointed out in parliament in January, to May’s likely discomfort – were due to see per capita NHS spending fall, albeit by just 0.2% in each year. That was going to make transforming the way the NHS delivers care and making overdue improvements – notably in cancer, mental health and maternity services - harder to achieve, Stevens had warned.

So the £8bn is a victory, albeit modest, for his public pleas for more cash than the £8bn promised in 2015. But while £8bn is and sounds like a lot of money, in NHS terms it is small beer. Bear in mind that the NHS budget in England this year will be £123.7bn. Therefore £8bn more over five years isn’t a lot of money. It is well below the extra sums that Labour (£37bn over the parliament) and Lib Dems (£6bn a year, but for both the NHS and social care).

It is also far less than the minimum 4% a year budget increases that the Office for Budget Responsibility said last autumn the NHS would have to start receiving again after 2020 given the huge extra cost pressures that are due to come its way from the growing and even more rapidly-ageing population, increasing impact of lifestyle-related diseases such as diabetes and also patient and doctor demand to access new drugs and technology. While 4% is a hefty increase, that is the average annual budget increase that the NHS enjoyed between its creation in 1948 and 2010, when the coalition took power.

Updated

CBI says Tory plans to cut immigration could damage economy

The CBI is worried about the Conservatives’ plans to cut immigration. This is from its director general, Carolyn Fairbairn.

Firms will be therefore heartened by proposed increased R&D spending, planned corporation tax reductions and a commitment to act on business rates.

But the Conservative manifesto has an Achilles heel – in a global race for talent and innovation UK firms risk being left in the starting blocks because of a blunt approach to immigration.

The next government can both control migration and support prosperity – it does not need to be an either-or choice.

Decisions made in the next parliament will determine the UK’s economic destiny for a generation. And Brexit is the biggest and most complex task facing the next government – getting it right is vital for our country’s future prosperity.

Updated

Torsten Bell, the Resolution Foundation director, has written an excellent blog about the Conservative manifesto, and the social care proposals in particular.

Here is its verdict in a nutshell.

After all, the big picture today is that Theresa May is proposing to significantly change our social care system to increase the volume of care people receive and is asking people with housing wealth to pay more for it. That marks the end of an era both for the Conservative party and possibly for the wider politics of intergenerational fairness.

He points out that, on winter fuel payments, May is going well beyond what Labour was proposing in 2015. Ed Miliband just wanted to take them away from wealthy pensioners, saving the taxpayer £100m. May will take them away from all but the poorest 2 million pensioners (those on pensions credit), saving £1.7bn.

As for whether the Tory proposals are a good idea or not, Bells says it depends on the alternative.

Against the world as it stands today these plans are a clear improvement – addressing one of the two big problems of the current system: massive unmet need where people who need care do not receive it. Simply putting more money into the system matters a lot from this perspective. The new system will also be more progressive with those with assets under £100,000 doing much better, and those with the highest care needs requiring residential care also winning. The biggest losers are those with significant housing but little wider wealth who require expensive care in their own home for a long period of time. They have gone from having their housing wealth entirely protected to all of it over £100,000 being at risk. Technically, it might be unfair to call this a death tax, but it’s certainly a death charge paid by homeowners unlucky enough to need care.

Against the benchmark of the previously promised system the assessment of the Conservative proposal becomes more complex. Dumping the Dilnot cap amounts to a decision to give up on a wider social insurance, with no limit on the costs you may have to bear for your social care if you have the means to pay for them – something that Sir Andrew convincingly argued against for economic and moral reasons. Just as now, the new proposals will mean individuals (and their families) bearing the financial risk of being unlucky enough to require very expensive care. Dementia will not only cost you the full enjoyment of later life but your ability to pass on to your children more than £100,000 of inheritance. That said, simply implementing the Dilnot cap without addressing the lack of funding and need for a higher means test that what today’s package amounts to was also deeply unsatisfactory as it focused resources on better off households with high care needs.

The ideal care system would incorporate both the social insurance of Dilnot with the additional resources and progressive protection that today’s proposals amount to.

Updated

Ukip has responded to the manifesto, with its leader, Paul Nuttall, arguing that under Theresa May the Conservatives have “become almost identical to the Labour party”, an argument that might come as a surprise to her and Jeremy Corbyn.

Nuttall said:

They offer no end to mass immigration, no firm Brexit, no end to spending billions of our hard-earned money on so-called foreign aid, and they offer no curb on our National Health Service being used as an international drop-in centre.

Ukip will publish its “fully costed manifesto” next week, the Ukip statement adds, including big reductions in foreign aid and a promise of zero net migration.

Updated

The Greens’ co-leader, Caroline Lucas, has released a statement calling the Conservatives’ plans on social care a “dementia tax”and the manifesto “deeply misguided”. She said:

The social care changes will hit those in need worst, shifting the cost burden on to individuals and further undermining the welfare state. The lockdown on migration isn’t just economically illiterate and bad for business, it’s cruel too.

In contrast, Lucas said, next week’s Green manifesto “will be setting out our vision for the confident and caring nation that we believe Britain can be”.

Updated

Tories say they would loosen planning rules relating to fracking

Investors in two of the UK’s biggest energy companies seem relaxed over the detail of the long-promised price cap on bills. The share price of British Gas owner Centrica is up more than 2% and SSE is up 1.5%.

While the Tories have promised in the campaign to cap the amount 17m households on standard variable tariffs pay, the final manifesto pledge is woolly, only promising to protect “more customers on the poorest value tariffs”.

Perhaps the most striking energy policy is on fracking, where the Conservatives would remove the need for planning permission for companies undertaking exploratory shale drilling.

That planning process has caused huge delays and headaches for the fracking industry, even after ministers attempted to fast-track planning applications, so this would be a significant change. The manifesto also promises a new shale regulator to speed things up.

Onshore windfarms, which the Tories campaigned hard against in the 2015 general election, are still considered unacceptable in England, but will get government support in remote Scottish islands.

Updated

What the manifesto says about what might be called 'Mayism'

Theresa May may disavow the term, but her Conservatism is different from Margaret Thatcher’s, or John Major’s, or David Cameron’s, and the final three paragraphs on page 9 of the manifesto (which Nick Watt mentioned in his question – see 12.26pm) provide as good a definition as any of what some of us will continue to call “Mayism”.

Because Conservatism is not and never has been the philosophy described by caricaturists. We do not believe in untrammelled free markets. We reject the cult of selfish individualism. We abhor social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality. We see rigid dogma and ideology not just as needless but dangerous.

True Conservatism means a commitment to country and community; a belief not just in society but in the good that government can do; a respect for the local and national institutions that bind us together; an insight that change is inevitable and change can be good, but that change should be shaped, through strong leadership and clear principles, for the common good.

We know that our responsibility to one another is greater than the rights we hold as individuals. We know that we all have obligations to one another, because that is what community and nation demands. We understand that nobody, however powerful, has succeeded alone and that we all therefore have a debt to others. We respect the fact that society is a contract between the generations: a partnership between those who are living, those who have lived before us, and those who are yet to be born.

In a recent Times column Michael Gove described May as “post-liberal”. That line about responsibilities to others outweighing our rights as individuals helps to define what Gove meant. (It also marks an interesting difference from Blairism; he pushed through a new clause IV for Labour saying “the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe”, implying responsibilities and rights having equal status, not that one outranks the other.)

(Gove’s column was headlined: Now we will find out what Mayism stands for. He clearly thinks it exists, even if she doesn’t.)

And the final sentence of the manifesto extract above is pure Edmund Burke. It is an adaptation of this quote from Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France. (My bold).

Society is indeed a contract. Subordinate contracts for objects of mere occasional interest may be dissolved at pleasure – but the state ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco, or some other such low concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties … it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.

Updated

One element of the Conservative manifesto is how relatively briefly it deals with global environmental protection and climate change, which some argue is the pressing issue of the age.

The section of the document about protecting the global environment runs to 133 words. In contrast, the paragraphs about allowing shale gas extraction and fracking takes up 306 words.

May says 'there is no Mayism', only 'good, solid conservatism'

Q: [From Newsnight’s Nick Watt] Page 9 of the manifesto says you reject the cult of selfish individualism (see 11.33am), and you reject rigid ideology. So is Mayism the rejection of Thatcherism?

May replies:

There is no Mayism. I know you journalists like to write about it. There is good, solid conservatism which puts the interests of the country and the interests of ordinary working people at the heart of everything we do in government.

  • May says “there is no Mayism”, only “good, solid conservatism”.

And that’s it. The Q&A is over.

Updated

Q: The manifesto does not say if high earners will pay more in tax. Will they?

May says high earners face a choice, between a party that always has and always will believe in low taxes, and a Labour party whose instinct is to put up taxes.

First reaction from Jeremy Corbyn, and it’s focused on the policies connected to older voters:

Q: If you win seats like this one, Halifax, those new MPs will hold your feet to the fire to get a firm Brexit. So isn’t David Cameron deluded in thinking you will resist a hard Brexit.

May says she does not think in terms of hard or soft Brexit. She wants the right Brexit.

Q: What does this manifesto say about you and your philosophy?

May says she thinks it shows that she is a good Conservative.

Q: Why should people believe you can get net migration below 100,000?

May said when she was home secretary the figures went down, then they went up again, and now they are going down.

When we are outside the EU we will have more control.

She explained in her speech why controlling immigration is so important.

Updated

Q: [From the Daily Mail’s Jason Groves] Do you expect peers to drop opposition to leaving the single market if you win? And do you see yourself as a Thatcherite?

May says she wants tariff-free and frictionless access to the single market. But you cannot be in it without effectively being in the EU, she says.

On Thatcher she says:

Margaret Thatcher was a Conservative, I’m a Conservative, this is a Conservative manifesto.

Q: Are you moving to the centre ground? And are you proud of being a red Tory?

May says the Tory party has always been in the centre ground.

She wants to give people opportunity, and to encourage aspiration.

You can now read – and download – the full manifesto from the Conservative party website.

Updated

Q: Are you being upfront with older people? Are you saying they have done well, and now have to pay more?

May says the triple lock was introduced when pensioners were not doing well. Now there is a risk that the younger generation won’t be better off.

Pensions will continue to go up. Instead of the triple lock, there will be a double lock. Pensions will go up in line with earnings or inflation, whichever is higher.

Q: Are you trying to redefine what it means to be a Conservative? And what do you say to people who claim your social care plan amounts to a death tax?

May says the social care problem has been ducked for too long. This is the first proper plan to address this, she says.

She says she wants to provide a system that gives people dignity in old age, but allows fairness across the generations.

The editorial in George Osborne’s Evening Standard has an instant reaction to the manifesto - it’s almost as if he had someone send over a copy in advance. The verdict? Not exciting, but “sensible”:

Anyone still expecting Theresa May to be the next Mrs Thatcher will be disappointed. There are no bold plans to roll back the frontiers of the state, or extend the private market into the public sphere.

The small group of Brexiteers who think leaving the EU will turn Britain into a new low-tax, low-regulation Singapore will find their delusion exposed.

Mrs May understands that this is not what most Leave voters want. Far from using Brexit as a chance to get rid of red tape, the Tories are using it as an excuse for extra regulation.

However, the editorial adds, the major questions for the UK are connected to Brexit: “They are not answered in this manifesto, not least because Britain is not in sole control of the negotiations.”

Q: [From Channel 4 News’ Gary Gibbon] Have you estimated the impact of cutting migration? And isn’t there an unfair gap between what happens to people whose parents get dementia and those who don’t? And the manifesto seems quite anti-business. Do you think business has got too greedy?

May says the government wants to reduce immigration because of the impact it has on people at the low end of the income scale. It depresses wages, and puts pressure on services.

On business, she says the manifesto sets out who the Tories want the UK to be the best place for businesses to grow. “But we do believe in responsible business.”

She says since 2010 2.9m jobs have been created. Employment is higher than since records began, she says.

Updated

Q: [From 5 News’ Andy Bell] Won’t people getting care in their own home pay more? And aren’t you turning your backs on middle England?

May says this is the first time we have seen a proper plan for care.

Those elderly people worried about paying for care in their home won’t have to worry. They won’t have to sell their home while they are living in it.

The figure for the assets people can keep is being quadrupled.

Q: [From Sky’s Faisal Islam] On page 36 the manifesto says you think no deal is better than a bad deal. Is this a mandate for leaving the EU with no deal? And wouldn’t that cause chaos?

May says she wants the best deal for Britain. She wants a deal that works for the whole of the UK.

May's Q&A

Q: [From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg] You are ditching many ideas you stood on two years ago. Some families will lose things, like free meals. You are pushing back deficit reduction. Isn’t this a bleak picture?

May does not accept this. There are hard choices, she says. But that is what strong and stable leadership is about.

She says for the first time ever the government is going to put forward a plan for social care. It is a plan that ensures fairness across the generations.

School pupils are being offered a breakfast at the start of the day.

An interesting potential change on policing:

May invites people to join her on this journey, and to come with her as she fights for Britain.

She raises her voice for her peroration (in a way that doesn’t quite come off.)

And that’s it. The speech is over.

Updated

May says her government will fight injustice wherever it is found.

For example, it will introduce the first mental health bill for 30 years.

But, above all, it will provide strong and stable leadership.

We need that more than ever because the next five years will be among the most challenging the country has faced.

Britain needs a clear plan, and the determination and the will to see it through.

It is time to put the old tribal politics behind us and to unite behind getting the best deal for Britain.

May says every vote for her and her team will strengthen her negotiating mandate.

She says she is optimistic she can get a deal for all.

May says with the right Brexit deal secured, “my mainstream government will deliver for mainstream Britain”.

It will deliver for those who are just about managing.

It wants every area of the country to prosper.

It will keep taxes low and cap energy tariffs.

It will build more homes.

It will build a Britain in which the economy is strong.

May says she has negotiated in Europe. She knows the best thing to do is to be clear about what you want.

You cannot be half in and half out, she says.

She says the British people made their choice. She respects that.

Britain will form a new “deep and special partnership with Europe”.

But it will reach out to other countries too.

May says we need a new contract between the government and the people.

She says it is the responsibility of leadership to be straight with people about the challenges ahead.

That is what this manifesto does.

It sets out how the government can face up to the five challenges facing the country.

1 Creating a strong economy

2 Brexit and a changing world

3 Tackling enduring social divisions.

4 Dealing with an ageing society

5 Dealing with fast-changing technology

Updated

On education:

May says building this Britain will not be easy.

There will be obstacles in the way. Some will wish us to fail, she says.

May says she wants Britain to be a place where people can go as far as their talent will take them, a place where it matters not where you are from but where you are going.

All that should matter is the talent you have and how hard you are prepared to work, she says.

She says we need to unleash the talent of every person.

Theresa May's speech

Theresa May is speaking now. She says the manifesto is a plan for a “stronger, fairer, more prosperous Britain”.

It is a detailed programme for government, rooted in the experiences of ordinary people.

She says, as we advance on the momentous journey of Brexit, we have a chance to ask what kind of country we want.

She says she thinks we can emerge “stronger, fairer and more prosperous than ever before”.

You can read the full manifesto here, it seems:

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is introducing Theresa May.

He says the Brexit negotiations will be tough. May’s record as home secretary shows she is tough, he says.

This is from my colleague Heather Stewart.

Tories promise to eliminate deficit by 2025

Tory propose building another 500,000 homes

Tories propose that people should have to show ID to vote

Tories to scrap stage two of Leveson inquiry

Tories to repeal Fixed-term Parliaments Act

This is from the Mirror’s Jack Blanchard.

Updated

This is from the Observer’s Michael Savage.

The Tory document is not online yet, but, in the meantime, here is Labour’s alternative version.

This is from the FT’s Sebastian Payne.

This is from my colleague Anushka Asthana.

This is from ITV’s Robert Peston.

This is from Sky’s Beth Rigby.

At the manifesto launch copies of the document are now being handed out to journalists.

Khan says Tory immigration plans would 'cause huge damage to London's economy'

Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, says the Tory immigrations proposals would cause “huge damage to London’s economy”. Echoing what the SNP are saying about these policies (see 10.49am), he says:

These Tory immigration policies are totally unworkable and will cause huge damage to London’s economy.

This is yet another anti-London policy from the most anti-London government since Margaret Thatcher.

Reducing net migration to the tens of thousands would make all Londoners poorer, cause huge damages to our public services like the NHS and schools, and make it impossible for us to build the affordable homes we need.

We must do more to give Londoners the skills they need for the jobs of tomorrow, but Tory plans to introduce extra charges for businesses who have no choice but to hire highly skilled workers from overseas will stifle jobs and growth.

London businesses need access to the most skilled workers from around the world.

Protesters with banners and placards demonstrate outside the venue where Theresa May is launching the Conservative party manifesto.
Protesters with banners and placards demonstrate outside the venue where Theresa May is launching the Conservative party manifesto. Photograph: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images

Theresa May has arrived at the venue for the Conservative manifesto launch in Halifax.

The Evening Standard has published the findings of an Ipsos MORI poll showing Labour up eight points - but the Conservatives still well ahead. Here is an excerpt from Joe Murphy’s story.

Labour has put on eight points, trimming the hefty Conservative lead to 15 points, while Mr Corbyn’s personal leadership ratings have slightly improved, found the Ipsos MORI survey, revealed exclusively in the Evening Standard.

But Tim Farron’s Liberal Democrats see their support halved to just seven per cent, a level no better than the 2015 general election.

Theresa May remains on course for a major victory on June 8, with the Conservatives unchanged on 49 per cent and Labour climbing from a rock-bottom 26 to 34 per cent. The Lib Dems are third on seven per cent, down from 14. But the biggest loser is Paul Nuttall’s crisis-stricken Ukip, down from four per cent to two per cent. Ukip is overtaken by the Greens, who edge up to three.

This is from Fraser Nelson, editor of the pro-Conservative Spectator.

In this week’s magazine Nelson has an article describing Theresa May as the most leftwing Tory leader for 40 years and explaining why her party tolerates that. Here is an extract.

Mrs May is the most left-wing leader the Tories have had in perhaps 40 years. In normal times, this would set her at odds with the MPs on the right — the ones Sir John Major once referred to as the ‘bastards’, for whom regicide is a form of relaxation. But not now. The Thatcherite MPs are those who are most committed to Brexit; having regarded the whole idea of leaving the EU as a dirty fantasy, they still cannot quite believe that it is coming true. For them, the national question — leaving the European Union and crushing the Scottish Nationalists — matters more than gas bills.

As one senior Tory puts it: ‘As a Conservative I have three priorities: the nation, security, and a low-tax economy. David Cameron gave me none of those three — Theresa May gives me two. So I’ll bank those two and back her, and worry about the rest later.’ There is also a belief that Conservatism’s strength lies in being opportunistic, and ideologically flexible. So if the public want some pick-and-mix, a bit of banker-bashing with their Brexit, then Tories will cheer Mrs May as she delivers it ...

For those Conservatives who think that the party’s role is to keep the bad guys out of power, things could not be going better. ‘If an energy price cap is the price we pay for destroying Labour in its heartlands, then I’ll pay it ten times over,’ says one MP. It’s an example of the strategic shamelessness which many Tories see as the party’s election-winning secret. When Lord Salisbury was prime minister, he said that Gladstone’s existence was the Conservative party’s greatest source of strength. Now it’s Jeremy Corbyn who is the great Tory unifier.

So the Conservatives are mutating from being the party of low taxation to the party of Brexit. They may regain their love of free enterprise when Britain has left the EU. Either way, it seems likely that in ten years’ time there will still be a clear Tory majority. And for now that seems to be all that matters.

Ukip held a press conference earlier to outline their energy policy and it’s fair to say it was a slate of policies not shared by many other parties in this election.

Roger Helmer, the Ukip MEP and longtime energy spokesman for the party, is an avowed sceptic about human-created climate change, and the policies he outlined reflected this.

Ukip are calling for the repeal of the Climate Change Act and withdrawal from the Paris climate accord – Helmer said he had recently read a letter from some MEPs to Donald Trump, asking that the US president fulfil his promise to leave the Paris deal.

Helmer argued that green energy policies were causing “an industrial massacre”, and making it “increasingly difficult for energy intensive industries to survive in Europe”, as well as causing fuel poverty among many households.

Ukip would remove VAT from domestic fuel, end subsidies for renewable technologies and focus on what he called “grown up” energy, not “playground technologies like wind farms”.

Helmer accepted he was a climate change sceptic, but insisted this did not mean the energy policies pushed Ukip to the political fringes on the issue:

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, nobody is arguing with that. But it is just one factor among many … Nothing is happening to the planet today that hasn’t happened before or that requires a special explanation.

The press conference heard from another Ukip MEP, Tim Aker, who said the party would particularly target pro-remain Tories. He used a fairly unusual image to explain the party’s electoral mission:

We have got to make sure that we have Ukip MPs on the backbenches, the Vietcong in the trees, making sure that if they don’t deliver, if they don’t do what the people want, we will be there to strike.

Ukip’s Roger Helmer
Ukip’s Roger Helmer Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian

Updated

Sky’s Adam Boulton has tweeted a picture of the set in the hall where Theresa May will launch the manifesto.

There’s an uneasy stand-off going on outside the Tories’ manifesto launch venue here in sunny Halifax. A small group of protesters have unveiled a Unite-branded banner in front of the Theresa May battle bus, saying “End Zero Hours”.

They’re shouting slogans including “Tory scum not welcome in Halifax”; and “come out and meet the people Theresa!”

The police are standing awkwardly by - and the Conservative press minders are looking on with horror. Not quite the optics they were looking for.

Protestors outside the venue in Halifax, West Yorkshire before Theresa May launches the Tory manifesto.
Protestors outside the venue in Halifax, West Yorkshire before Theresa May launches the Tory manifesto. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA

Like the Unison general secretary Dave Prentis (see 10.29am), Labour’s Jess Phillips is worried that the Tory plan could just end up as a profits bonanza for care providers.

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, says the Tory proposals mean Labour is now the party for older people.

The SNP’s George Kerevan, an academic economist, has the same analysis of the Tory care plans as the Conservative Bow Group. (See 10.03am.)

Here Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation thinktank, on the Tory social care plan.

Bell has also produced a good “fix” to the Daily Mail splash headline. Responding to this tweet.

He commented:

SNP says Tory migration target would cause 'massive damage to Scottish economy'

Michael Russell, the Brexit minister in the SNP government in Scotland, has condemned the Conservative plan to keep the target for getting annual net migration under 100,000.

The SNP’s Andrew Wilson says some Scottish Tories interpret this as meaning Scotland should have annual net migration of under 10,000.

Responding to this, Russell said this would be “complete madness”.

Unite campaigners are at the Tory manifesto launch where they have unveiled a banner calling for the end of zero-hours contracts.

Boris Johnson getting off the Conservative party battlebus as it arrives in Halifax, West Yorkshire for the manifesto launch.
Boris Johnson getting off the Conservative party battlebus as it arrives in Halifax, West Yorkshire for the manifesto launch. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA

Lib Dems claim Tory manifesto shows 'the nasty party is back'

The Lib Dems claim the Tory manifesto proposals show “the nasty party is back”. This is from their campaign spokesperson, Ed Davey.

It is clear the more you need, the more you pay with May. Theresa May is betraying working families by snatching school lunches from their children and their homes when they die. The nasty party is back – hitting families from cradle to grave.

The choices she’s made in her manifesto will hurt over half a million frail elderly people and almost 2 million children.

Updated

The National Pensioners Convention says the Tory social care plans offer pensioners “the worst of all possible worlds”. This is from its general secretary, Jan Shortt.

The Conservatives’ manifesto pledge on social care offers the worst of all possible worlds for millions of older people and their families. It’s a Frankenstein’s monster of a plan which bolts lots of bad policies together and still fails to tackle the real unfairness in the care system.

Every single pensioner needing care at home will now be forced to pay, regardless of their income, because for the first time ever the value of their home will be taken into account, whilst the number of those in care homes that will benefit will be relatively small by comparison. What makes it worse is that to pay for this proposal, around 9 million pensioners are going to lose their winter fuel allowance and all pensioners will see the value of their state pension fall once the triple lock is removed.

This plan has completely failed to spread the risk and cost of social care across society as a whole, and in effect has left the burden on the shoulders of millions of older people and their families. It’s actually quite unbelievable that the Conservatives, who rely on the support of older voters, would make such a controversial and punitive proposal. They clearly have no intention of solving the social care crisis.

Updated

Dave Prentis, the Unison general secretary, whose union represents people working in health and social care, has also criticised the Tory plans.

Caroline Lucas, the Green party co-leader, has criticised the Tories’ care plans.

Theresa May has chosen Halifax to launch the Tory manifesto – the latest in a string of visits to the north-east that underlines the Tories’ determination to seize seats in traditionally Labour areas. Labour’s Holly Lynch had a majority of just 428 over the Conservatives in 2015.

Updated

Here is Sky’s political editor, Faisal Islam, on the Conservative plan for social care.

Updated

On Sky News Adam Boulton says he has seen the set from the hall in Halifax, where the Tory manifesto is being launched at 11.15. He says there is no mention of Theresa May or “strong and stable leadership” on the branding, which he says represents a new approach.

The Bow Group, a Conservative party thinktank which used to be establishment and centrist but which in recent years has focused on goading the party leadership, has put out a press statement denouncing the care plans as “the biggest stealth tax in history”. This is from its chairman, Ben Harris-Quinney.

These proposals will mean that the majority of property owning citizens could be transferring the bulk of their assets to the government upon death for care they have already paid a lifetime of taxes to receive.

It is a tax on death and on inheritance. It will mean that in the end, the government will have taken the lion’s share of a lifetime earnings in taxes. If enacted, it is likely to represent the biggest stealth tax in history and when people understand that they will be leaving most of their estate to the government, rather than their families, the Conservative party will experience a dramatic loss of support.

Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester and health secretary in 2010 when Labour floated a plan to fund social care with a 10% levy on estates (the “death tax”), has rejected the Demos claim (see 9.47am) that the Tory plans are similar to his.

Updated

Andrew Dilnot may not be very happy about the Conservative party’s social care plans, but the Demos thinktank is supportive. This is from its chief executive, Claudia Wood, a social care specialist. (Bold type from the Demos release.)

Social care currently has a means and a needs test – in other words, you have to be both really poor, and really ill, to get funding support from your council.

The Conservative manifesto pledges to change the means-testing element of this – shifting the benchmark upwards so that those with assets worth more than £100,000 have to pay for all of their care. This calculation includes the value of a person’s home, so the vast majority of home-owning older people will find they have to pay. This may seem unfair, but the current asset threshold is already very low (£23,250) – meaning not only all homeowners, but many social renters with modest retirement savings also have to pay for all of their residential care. The large jump in the threshold will means hundreds of thousands of the poorest older people will have access to partially or fully funded residential care for the first time.

However, the substantive difference in the manifesto is that the asset test will now also apply to care in one’s own home. This will expand the number of self-payers substantially in this market, but it does bring parity between residential and home care, improving the clarity of the assessment system. It may also make it easier to move between care in one’s own home and in residential care; up until now, this was never seen as viable, as people often had to sell their home to pay for residential care.

This is where the manifesto is a game-changer – it pledges that people will not have to sell their home in order to pay for their care while they or their partner are alive – flexibility that has never been possible before. The answer lies in equity release – financial products which essentially allow you to mortgage a portion of your home in return for cash to pay for care, which is then paid back with interest when you sell up or, in many cases, when you die, and your beneficiaries will have to pay up.

All in all, it’s basically a rerun of the Andy Burnham policy the Conservatives labelled ‘the death tax’ – an idea that remains a reasonable policy solution to this most pressing of issues.

Updated

Jeremy Hunt's Today interview - Summary

Here are the key points from Jeremy Hunt’s Today programme interview.

  • Hunt, the health secretary, said the Conservative manifesto would include plans for extra spending on the NHS. Asked about this, he said:

You will have to wait and see, but you will see a commitment to increase spending on the NHS, yes, above the promises that we’ve made to date.

  • He claimed the cabinet was “completely united” behind Theresa May’s decision to keep the Tory target for getting annual net migration below 100,000. An editorial in the Evening Standard, which is now edited by the former Tory chancellor George Osborne, claimed yesterday that May was the only senior cabinet member who actually believed in the policy. Hunt denied this, and said the policy was important because it showed the government was listening to the concerns of voters.

I think you’ll find the cabinet, and including me, are completely united behind Theresa May on this because we believe that the worst possible thing we could do is to take that Brexit vote and to pretend that we were listening to it, and then not actually listen to the real message which is that many people have concerns about immigration, that they think the political establishment has ignored for a very long time.

What Theresa May is saying is: ‘Well I’m not going to ignore those concerns, I’m going to listen to those concerns’, because that is the kind of prime minister she wants to be.

The reason we are making this promise again is because we are listening to the message that people gave the political establishment on 23 June last year, which said that they wanted control of the border, of our borders, and they wanted immigration reduced.

  • He defended the Tory manifesto plan to double the charge for firms hiring workers from outside the EU on skilled visas from £1,000 to £2,000. He said:

Everyone recognises the incredibly important role that immigration has in our society, of course I recognise it particularly in the NHS, where we have brilliant work done by workers from the EU and other overseas countries.

But what is not fair is if you bring in these workers from overseas, but then you don’t train up your own people and give them the skills such that they can do some of these higher paid jobs.

What we’re saying to businesses is that we all have a social responsibility and if you are benefiting by bringing in workers from overseas, then you need to help pay to train people in this country so that they can access those higher paid jobs.

That’s very, very important if we’re going to have a social contract where people support a capitalist market system, then people have to feel it’s fair to everyone.

Jeremy Hunt.
Jeremy Hunt. Photograph: Daniel Leal-Olivas/AFP/Getty Images

Updated

I’ve beefed up our earlier post on Andrew Dilnot’s Today interview about the Conservatives plans for social care. Dilnot, an economist who now runs an Oxford college, was appointed by the coalition government to chair a commission looking at social care and in 2011 it produced a report that was seen offering a potential long-term funding solution.

But the coalition government first watered down the plans and then, having gone into the 2015 election pledging to introduce them, David Cameron’s Conservative government then shelved implementation until 2020.

Today’s manifesto means the Dilnot blueprint is now dead and buried.

Dilnot is clearly furious, as you can see from what he said earlier (although he concealed his anger with classic English reserve). (See 7.31am.)

Here is some reaction to the Dilnot interview.

From the Times’ Matt Chorley

From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg

From the Health Service Journal editor Alastair McLellan

Updated

Hunt says the Conservative manifesto will propose extra spending on the NHS

Q: You will promise to get the deficit down. Why on earth should anyone believe that?

You can do better than that, Nick, Hunt says. The deficit has been reduced. It is at the same level it was when the financial crisis started.

We said, because of Brexit, we needed a little more flexibility.

Q: Will there be more money for the NHS?

Hunt says there will be a commitment to increase spending on the NHS, above the promises already made.

  • Hunt says the Conservative manifesto will propose extra spending on the NHS.

Q: Are you going to stay in your job?

Hunt says Robinson should not make assumptions about who will win the election.

And that’s it.

Updated

Q: Will you listen to businesses that say they are opposed to having to pay twice as much to hire a foreign worker?

Hunt says what is not fair is to allow firms to hire from overseas without paying to train people in the UK.

Q: Why are you promising to get immigration below 100,000 when you have not done that for seven years? Isn’t that insulting to people’s intelligence?

Hunt says the government could not do that because it was in the EU. The government is listening to people.

Q: George Osborne, in the Evening Standard, says no cabinet minister backs this in private. I have never met a minister who in private thinks this is a good idea.

Hunt says he thinks this is a good idea. He says the government has to show it is listening to what people want.

Updated

Q: If you are cared for at home, you will have to spend much of the value of your home for your care. So it is meaningless to say they will be able to pass on their home to their children.

Hunt says people who go into a care home have to use up their money until they are left with just £23,000. The Tories will quadruple that figure.

He says the Tories have looked at the Andrew Dilnot proposal ...

Q: It was your proposal. It was in your last manifesto.

But we have dropped it, he says.

He says the Tories do not think the Dilnot plan was fair.

This is about fairness between the generations, he says.

Q: You say your plan will protect people’s homes. But the average home is worth £225,000. You will only let people keep assets of £100,000. So anyone inheriting the average house will have a mortgage on it. People will not be able to inherit the home. Effectively this is a death tax.

Hunt says he does not accept that.

The party does think that assets saved up over a lifetime should be used to pay for care costs.

The government will protect £100,000. People will be able to pass that on.

Nick Robinson is interviewing Jeremy Hunt.

Robinson starts by saying the last Tory manifesto promised to put a cap on how much people would have to pay for their care costs. That policy has been abandoned. Now there will be a floor instead (you won’t have to pay once your assets are reduced to a certain level). And the value of your home will be taken into account.

Q: Why have you changed the rules?

Hunt says he wants to correct Robinson. He says at the moment the value of a person’s home is taken into account when it is assessed if they have to pay for care in a care home. But it is not taken into account when people receiving care in their own home are billed. He says the Tory plan will mean the same rule applies to both groups.

He says the Tory manifesto shows the party is prepared to make difficult choices.

You would expect the Tory manifesto to talk about defence and the police.

But it is focusing on care because this is an issue that people worry about, he says.

People want to know that they can pass on their savings. At the moment people can be “completely cleaned out”.

Jeremy Hunt's Today interview

Good morning. I’m taking over from Claire.

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, is about to be interviewed on Today about the Conservative manifesto launch and the party’s plans to make the elderly pay more for social care.

Updated

I’m now handing over the live blog to Andrew Sparrow, who’ll take you through the rest of the day.

To have our daily election briefing freshly delivered to your inbox tomorrow – and every weekday – morning, do sign up here.

Updated

My colleague Alan Travis has compiled a list of five things to look out for when the Conservative manifesto is officially unveiled later this morning. You can read the full article here – but this is an intriguing question:

What’s on offer for a working class kid from Brixton, Birmingham, Bolton or Bradford?

This was a question asked in a 2016 article by May’s joint chief of staff, Nick Timothy, who was raised in a Brummie working-class family, which identified the Tories’ most serious weakness as “the perception that we simply do not give a toss about ordinary people”.

He said an approach was needed that continued to help the very poor and fought injustices based on gender, race and sexuality but the party also needed to “adopt a relentless focus on governing in the interests of ordinary, working people”.

He argued that previous Tory governments had got this right on welfare reform, increasing the minimum wage and the “northern powerhouse”. But he said they had lost sight of their interests on energy policy, housebuilding, immigration, tax credit cuts, protecting pensioner benefits, and the profile of spending cuts. Look out for evidence of this bigger vision of what might be called Mayism in the manifesto.

Updated

Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Conservatives have also announced – as Welsh Labour did earlier – that they will suspend campaigning today following the death of former first minister Rhodri Morgan.

Leanne Wood, the leader of Plaid Cymru, is due to appear this evening in ITV’s leaders’ debates, following last night’s ITV Wales version. She’ll be joined by Nicola Sturgeon, Tim Farron, Caroline Lucas and Paul Nuttall – but not by Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn, who have said they won’t take part.

As deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg introduced free school lunches for infants. That scheme could now be scrapped, with the Conservative manifesto promising to cancel it in exchange for free breakfasts for all primary school pupils (an estimated saving, the Tories say, of £650 a year per pupil).

Clegg has this morning called it a “cynical” move:

Updated

Social care: Labour response

Barbara Keeley, Labour’s shadow minister for social care, has criticised the Tory proposals:

In their last manifesto they promised a cap on care costs. But they broke their promise, letting older and vulnerable people down.

It’s the Tories who have pushed social care into crisis; their cuts to councils have meant £4.6bn axed from social care budgets between 2010 and 2015, leaving 1.2 million people struggling to get by without care.

The Labour manifesto published earlier included a pledge for an increase in social care budgets of £8bn over the five-year parliament, with £1bn in the first year. It said this would mean:

ending 15-minute care visits and providing care workers with paid travel time, access to training and an option to choose regular hours.

It also set out plans to:

place a maximum limit on lifetime personal contributions to care costs, raise the asset threshold below which people are entitled to state support, and provide free end-of-life care.

But it did not set out precisely how that would be funded, saying it would “seek consensus” on the answer:

There are different ways the necessary monies can be raised. We will seek consensus on a cross-party basis about how it should be funded, with options including wealth taxes, an employer care contribution or a new social care levy.

Updated

Tory care plans 'fail to tackle central problem' and will leave 'many people worse off', says care expert Andrew Dilnot

Andrew Dilnot – who led the review into funding for social care in England in 2011 but whose proposals were shelved after the Tories won the 2015 election – has been speaking to the Today programme and labels the plans set out by the Conservatives this morning as

new thinking that shows a less than full understanding of the problems.

He says the plans so far trailed in the Tory manifesto “fail to tackle what I’d argue is the biggest problem of all”, which is that with social care there is “nothing you can do to protect yourself”. People cannot insure themselves against the costs of care in later life, something Dilnot describes as a “classic example of a market failure”.

They’re tackling completely different questions and the disappointment about these proposals that we’re expecting to hear in the Conservative manifesto later is that they fail to tackle what I’d argue is probably the biggest problem of all in social care, which is that at the moment people are faced with a position of no control.

There’s nothing you can do to protect yourself against care costs, you can’t insure it because the privater sector won’t insure it, and by refusing to implement the cap [Dilnot’s own proposal] that Conservatives are now saying they’re not going to provide social insurance for it.

So people will be left helpless knowing that what will happen is if they’re unlucky enough to suffer the need for care costs, they’ll be entirely on their own until they’re down to the last £100,000, all of their wealth including their house.

Dilnot says he is “very disappointed” with the proposals, adding that Theresa May had previously pledged to tackle broken markets.

This was an absolute open goal for that type of approach and it seems to have been missed.

Dilnot says that some people will be helped by the Tory plans, but he says the majority of people receiving care in their own homes, rather than in residential care, “will find themselves worse off”.

What’s being done on the means test will help some people, although many people, the majority of people who are getting care not in a residential care home but in their own home, will find themselves worse off.

So the changes are not bad in themselves. It is just that they fail to tackle the central problem that scares most people ...

The analogy is a bit like saying to somebody: you can’t insure your house against burning down, if it does burn down then you’re completely on your own, you have to pay for all of it until you’re down to the last £100,000 of all your assets and income.

There’s been some work going on in the Cabinet Office recently to think about what might come next, there’s the proposal for a green paper after the election.

So I’m very surprised there is such specific information that appears to be new thinking, new thinking that I’d argue shows a less than full understanding of the problems, when there’s a green paper that’s due to come out later this year.

Andrew Dilnot.
Andrew Dilnot. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian

Updated

Tributes paid to Rhodri Morgan

Welsh Labour has suspended campaigning today after the death of Rhodri Morgan, its former leader and Welsh first minister.

Tributes from across party lines have been paid to Morgan, who was 77.

The Welsh Labour leader, Carwyn Jones:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn:

Plaid Cymru leader Leanne Wood:

Leader of the Welsh Conservatives Andrew RT Davies:

Updated

While the traditional Tory-supporting press has shouldered the shift that saw Theresa May champion an energy bill cap that was roundly lambasted when proposed by Ed Miliband as Labour leader, the social care changes are prompting a more guarded response.

“Middle-class pensioners to lose benefits under Tory plan to fund social care,” is the Telegraph’s lead this morning. The Daily Mail is pleased that elderly people won’t be compelled to sell their home to fund care, but adds: “Tens of thousands more will be forced to pay and winter fuel benefit will be axed for millions.”

Andrew Dilnot carried out a government review into funding for social care in England in 2011. One of its key recommendations was that an individual’s contributions to their care should be capped – that cap had already been deferred by the Conservative government until 2020. Now it looks set to be dropped in today’s manifesto.

Dilnot told the Times – which reports “tens of thousands more people will be made to pay for their care in old age” – today:

It’s extremely disappointing that no attempt is being made to provide risk-pooling or social insurance. People will still be left to manage the risk to which they are exposed.

Updated

The Snap: your election briefing

Welcome back as we hit the “really – there’s still three weeks until polling day?” mark. I’m Claire Phipps with the morning roundup and the early news; Andrew Sparrow will be along later. Join us in the comments below or on Twitter @Claire_Phipps.

What’s happening?

It’s here: the day when Team Theresa May, the party formerly known as the Conservatives, tells us some actual policies. Hack through the knotweed of strong and stables, and coalitions of chaos, into a clearing where hitherto elusive details of tax and social care and migration might be spotted, along with a beleaguered fox.

What do we know? Having studiously pretended that they just weren’t into the commitment thing, the Tories have at the last moment plighted their troth. We have numbers, some of them with £ signs attached. Elderly people can have £100,000 in assets (up from £23,250) before they’ll be asked to pay for social care, but they will be asked to pay whether in their own home or elsewhere. There’ll be no cap on costs, but a promise that nobody will have to sell their home for care while they’re alive – which translates to a bill once they’re not. Of course, as Labour’s Andy Burnham was not the first or last to point out, this used to be snarled at by some as a “death tax”. But that was back in the days when caps on energy bills were “Marxist” and not official Conservative policy.

You can read May’s pitch in her own words in the Telegraph and in the Sun today, if you don’t mind that a lot of those words are “strong”.

But here’s the nitty-gritty. Winter fuel payments for pensioners will be means-tested. The pensions triple lock will be undone. Charges for firms employing foreign workers, and for overseas visitors using the NHS, will be upped. There’ll be no such thing as a free school lunch but there will be free breakfasts for all primary pupils, a saving the Tories claim will boost schools funding by £4bn by 2022. The Sun, lauding the PM as a “consumer champion”, says a “trains ombudsman will be created to stand up for furious passengers”, presumably because there are no seats.

In the still don’t know column sits anything firm on tax, and what Brexit means.

But watch out for the third rolling-out of the policy – perhaps more of a vague wish this time – to cut net migration to the tens of thousands. An editorial in George Osborne’s Evening Standard yesterday claimed none of the cabinet were behind the quixotic pledge:

All would be glad to see the back of something that has caused the Conservative party such public grief.

Johnson makes alcohol ‘gaffe’ during Sikh temple visit

Could there be a better segue into Boris Johnson’s latest adventure? The foreign secretary has apologised after using a rare day release to the campaign trail, to a Sikh gurdwara in Bristol, to plug one of his favourite topics: don’t worry about Brexit – we can sell a load of whisky to India!

Drinking alcohol is forbidden in some Sikh teachings, and the Sikh Federation pointed out that those who have taken intoxicants are not supposed to enter a temple. Johnson’s aides said “there was no gaffe”, but Johnson’s aides’ gaffe tolerance levels might by now be calibrated differently to most.

No real missteps in the ITV Wales leaders’ debate, which centred on Brexit: Ukip’s Neil Hamilton wants a “clean Brexit”, while Labour’s Carwyn Jones wants a “sensible” one. Lib Dem Mark Williams warned it could be “disastrous” for Wales, and the Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood, said Wales has been ignored (although the country did vote for Brexit and that’s certainly been clocked).

The Welsh Conservative leader, Andrew RT Davies, said “strong and stable” and “coalition of chaos” and occasionally some other words.

Tonight it’s the full-blown ITV leaders’ debate, minus May and Jeremy Corbyn, who’ll send spin doctors instead to pick holes in the arguments they won’t be making.

It does mean we’ll hear more of what the other parties are proposing: you can get up to speed on the Lib Dem manifesto – and its commitment to raise £1bn by legalising cannabis – here; the sums are here.

Tim Farron Launches The Liberal Democrat Manifesto In LondonLONDON, UNITED KINGDOM - MAY 17: Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron launches the party’s manifesto at the Oval in east London for the 2017 General Election. May 17, 2017 in London, England. PHOTOGRAPH BY Wiktor Szymanowicz / Barcroft Images London-T:+44 207 033 1031 E:hello@barcroftmedia.com - New York-T:+1 212 796 2458 E:hello@barcroftusa.com - New Delhi-T:+91 11 4053 2429 E:hello@barcroftindia.com www.barcroftimages.com
Lib Dems: the party that knows how to party. That’s not my line: go and read John Crace’s sketch. Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz / Barcroft

At a glance:

Poll position

A fresh YouGov poll for the Times dunks the Tories down a point to 45%, with Labour up two to 32%. And a curious GFK poll for Business Insider pronounces Corbyn a “bigger vote-winner than Tony Blair”, with 31% saying they “would consider voting Labour” under its current leadership, against 23% who might give it a whirl should Toxic Tony magically spirit himself back into contention, a proposal that not even the most devout Blairite (yes, they still walk among us) is offering. Springtime 1997 Blair was, if memory serves, scoring a tad higher.

Against other, actual party leaders, Corbyn fares worse, with a net approval rating of -30 versus May’s +16. Paul Nuttall (-28), Nicola Sturgeon (-23) and Tim Farron (-11) also get the thumbs down.

Diary

  • At 9.30am Ukip shows off its energy policy; that’s in London.
  • The main event is at 11.15am, with the Conservative manifesto launch in West Yorkshire.
  • Then this evening it’s the ITV leaders’ debate minus the two prime ministerial candidates, at 8pm in Salford. Expect to see Nicola Sturgeon, Tim Farron, Caroline Lucas, Paul Nuttall and Leanne Wood.
Julie Etchingham will host the ITV Leaders’ Debate, a live two-hour debate programme before the General Election, which will air on Thursday. PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Issue date: Wednesday May 17, 2017. Photo credit should read: Mark Bruce/ITV/PA Wire NOTE TO EDITORS: This handout photo may only be used in for editorial reporting purposes for the contemporaneous illustration of events, things or the people in the image or facts mentioned in the caption. Reuse of the picture may require further permission from the copyright holder.
Julie Etchingham will host the ITV leaders’ debate. Two podiums will wait for May and Corbyn till 7.59pm – but the missing leaders won’t be empty chaired. Photograph: Mark Bruce/ITV/PA

Read these

BuzzFeed analysis by Tom Phillips and Jim Waterson reveals rather different travel tactics by the two party leaders:

Jeremy Corbyn has visited only two seats so far where Labour is defending a small majority in the election campaign … The leader has visited none of the party’s 40 most vulnerable seats, and just two – Southampton Test and York Central – of the 100 most at risk. Instead, Corbyn has spent the vast majority of his campaign in either safe Labour constituencies or Conservative-held marginals, the analysis shows …

Theresa May, meanwhile, has largely focused her visits to Conservative-held seats with relatively low majorities, which have the potential to be losses. She’s been to seven seats that fall within the Conservatives’ 100 most vulnerable, versus just three that lie outside it. Of those three, one was her own safe seat of Maidenhead.

Anne Perkins, in the Guardian, says the Lib Dem pitch as the party of the 48% is flailing:

The trouble is that the remain vote has turned out to be much flakier than it felt last June, or even at the time of the Richmond byelection … The wound is healing. Unsurprisingly, this is not turning out well for the party. Instead of the usual election pattern of the Lib Dems picking up support as their name recognition and familiarity grows, this time it seems to be leaking away. Outside London and the south-east of England, campaigners are barely fighting on the national platform at all. They are fighting old-fashioned local campaigns about schools and hospitals.

Revelation of the day

Nigel Farage just can’t seem to stop those darned gun metaphors toppling out of his mouth. After sparking upset last year – barely a week after the murder of Jo Cox – with his claim that the vote to leave the EU had been won “without a single bullet being fired”, he took the opportunity this week to warn that if Brexit didn’t mean proper, full-on, Ukippy Brexit:

I will be forced to don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines.

Farage’s spokesman told the Mirror: “It was a metaphor. Get a life.”

The day in a tweet

And another thing

Would you like to wake up to this briefing in your inbox every weekday? Sign up here!

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
This Tiny Cat Living With A Rare Genetic Condition Was Rescued And Found His Loving Family
Grub’s life doesn’t look like most cats’, but he’s loved in ways that make all the difference.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
Did Miley Cyrus And Emily Osment Not Get Along In Hannah Montana? Absence During The Show's Anniversary Raises Questions
Emily Osment's absence from the Hannah Montana anniversary special raises questions about her relationship with Miley Cyrus. Here's what we know.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
'Vaping Squirrels' in London and Philadelphia Go Viral: Here's Why They Are Drawn to E-Cigs
Discover the viral phenomenon of 'vaping squirrels' and the environmental dangers posed by discarded e-cigarettes.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
Stephen Colbert to write new Lord of the Rings film after end of the Late Show
Comedian and avid Tolkien fan to write the Lord of the Rings: Shadow of the Past, a new Peter Jackson-produced film based on unadapted chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring
The Guardian - AU
The Guardian - AU
A Woman Driving Next To Matt LeBlanc Recognized Him, Then Immediately Got Into A Car Accident
I wonder how many "fame accidents" there have been, overall?
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
I’m Shook Over The Historic Milestone Spider-Man: Brand New Day’s Trailer Just Hit
This is astounding!
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play