Closing summary
That’s it from us for this evening. My colleague, Andrew Sparrow, has put together a detailed summary of the day’s events:
And, if you’d like to read yet more, Heather Stewart has this evening’s main politics story:
Last week, the former Labour MP Ian Austin called on the party’s traditional voters to back the Conservatives in order to prevent Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister.
This week, the Tories are seeking to maximise the damage to their rivals by paying for letters from Austin, in which he argues the same, to be sent out to thousands of voters in Labour marginals.
Voters from Ipswich, Stroud, Ashfield, Bedford and Cardiff North – all seats held by Corbyn’s party by fewer than 1,000 votes last time – have been posting copies of their letters from the ex-junior minister on social media. Speaking to the Press Association this evening, Austin has said:
I have made it absolutely clear that Jeremy Corbyn is not fit to lead the Labour party, never mind the country. I have written a letter to that effect.
He would not be drawn on how many voters had received the letter, or how the Tories had come to fund it being posted out. Austin told recipients that “no-one” believes Corbyn will deliver Brexit and that Labour’s plans for government would “put businesses, investment and jobs at risk”.
I know how hard it is for Labour voters to back the Tories, but at the end of this election, either Boris Johnson will be prime minister – or Jeremy Corbyn. That’s the choice. And I am worried that if Boris Johnson does not get a majority, the SNP will back Corbyn.
It is too big a risk. That is why I think we should lend the Tories our votes and stop Jeremy Corbyn getting anywhere near Downing Street.
The strapline at the bottom of the letter states: “Promoted by Alan Mabbutt on behalf of the Conservative and Unionist Party.” Here’s the article we ran last week on Austin’s original comments:
Updated
Earlier, we reported that the Brexit party leader, Nigel Farage, had claimed his decision to stand down candidates in Tory-held constituencies was motivated by a desire not to help produce a hung parliament that might allow “that Swinson girl” near Downing Street; “perfectly pleasant though she is”.
Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, has responded this evening, saying:
Nigel Farage is going to discover that I am not always perfectly pleasant.
Farage has stood for parliament seven times and every single time the voters have rejected his toxic brand of chauvinistic, far-right nationalism. He knows he is not going to get anywhere nearer to power this election and is so scared that he hasn’t even bothered standing. He is lashing out at the real threat to his Tory-Brexit party electoral pact: the girly swot leading the UK’s strongest remain party.
The Liberal Democrats want to stop Brexit and build a brighter future, where everybody’s rights are respected and society is fair and diverse.
Updated
Afternoon summary
- Boris Johnson has sought to counter claims that he has been opportunistically exploiting the London Bridge terror attack by insisting that he has been calling for longer sentences for serious offenders for years. On what might have been one of the quietest days for campaigning since the election began, Johnson gave interviews this afternoon responding to the charge that has dogged him for the last 48 hours, since he responded to the London Bridge killings by calling for tougher sentences for terrorists. Johnson also claimed that it was clear from the outset that the attacker, Usman Khan, was not suitable for rehabilitation – even though some reports have said he was seen as a model example of what could be achieved through rehabilitation programmes. In an article for the Guardian published this afternoon, Dave Merritt, whose son Jack was one of the two young prisoner rehabilitation specialists killed in the attack, said Jack would have been furious to see his death being used to justify making penal policy more draconian. Merritt wrote:
[Jack] would be seething at his death, and his life, being used to perpetuate an agenda of hate that he gave his everything fighting against. We should never forget that. What Jack would want from this is for all of us to walk through the door he has booted down, in his black Doc Martens.
That door opens up a world where we do not lock up and throw away the key. Where we do not give indeterminate sentences, or convict people on joint enterprise. Where we do not slash prison budgets, and where we focus on rehabilitation not revenge. Where we do not consistently undermine our public services, the lifeline of our nation. Jack believed in the inherent goodness of humanity, and felt a deep social responsibility to protect that. Through us all, Jack marches on.
Speaking to reporters shortly before Merritt’s article was published, Johnson said:
Of course, I feel, as everybody does, a huge amount of sympathy for the loss of Jack Merritt’s family, and indeed for all the relatives of Jack and Saskia [Jones], who perished at London Bridge.
But, be in no doubt, I’ve campaigned against early release and against short sentences for many years. It was in my manifesto in 2012 when I was mayor of London. I said it in August and it’s in the Queen’s speech. In fact, there’s a bill we’ve got ready to go in the Queen’s speech to stop automatic early release for serious and violent offenders.
But Johnson was not being wholly candid. The sentencing bill in the Queen’s speech proposed changing the automatic release point from halfway through a sentence to two-thirds of the way through a sentence for people serving sentences of four years or more for a serious violent or sexual offence. The Conservative manifesto, published just five days before the London Bridge attack, effectively just replicated this, proposing “tougher sentencing for the worst offenders” and an end to automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes. But on Saturday, a day after Khan’s attack, Johnson escalated his demands by calling for two measures that went beyond anything previously proposed by his party: mandatory minimum 14-year sentences for serious terrorist offences, and no early release at all for all terrorism and extremism offences.
- Nigel Farage, the Brexit party leader, has claimed that that if the UK were to join the proposed European defence union after Brexit, Nato would collapse. He made the argument in a speech at a rally in north Wales in which he also claimed that EU politicians “want Nato out of Europe”. Even by the accuracy standards of this general election campaign, Farage’s arguments were particularly improbable. But if this is where Donald Trump is getting his advance briefing before Wednesday’s Nato summit at a hotel near Watford (which is not impossible), that should make for an interesting conversation.
- Farage has also suggested that Trump might use the summit to insist that America is not interested in buying up the NHS. This would ostensibly help Johnson, who says that the NHS will not be covered by any UK-EU trade deal, and undermine Jeremy Corbyn, who insists that it will be, but given Trump’s standing with the British public, and his reputation for honesty, it is hard to see any declaration like this making much difference either way. Trump has already started his flight to the UK. Before the visit, Corbyn has urged Johnson to break off trade talks with Trump until any reference to pharmaceuticals is struck out of Washington’s negotiating objectives.
- The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published a briefing suggesting that council tax in England is more likely to go up under the Conservatives than under Labour. That’s because Labour plans a generous settlement for local government, “more than enough money to meet rising costs and demands”, even with no rise in council tax bills, while the Tory settlement would not meet rising costs and demands, “even if council tax were increased by 4% a year”.
That’s all from me for tonight.
My colleague Kevin Rawlinson is writing the blog now.
Updated
From the Telegraph’s US editor, Ben Riley-Smith:
So Trump is in the air and heading to Britain. Will he weigh in for Boris when there?
— Ben Riley-Smith (@benrileysmith) December 2, 2019
A senior US official said on Friday that president is "very conscious ... of the fact that we do not interfere" in elections.
Let's see if that holds...
Another quote from the senior US admin official on Trump's UK trip and Boris....
— Ben Riley-Smith (@benrileysmith) December 2, 2019
"He also, as I suspect you know, likes Boris Johnson - Prime Minister Johnson, personally. But he is absolutely cognizant of not, again, wading into other country's elections."
Updated
Boris Johnson has rejected claims that he has been opportunistically exploiting the London Bridge attack. In interviews this afternoon he said that he had been calling for some time for longer sentences for serious offenders, and that the Queen’s speech in October even included a bill on this topic. (See 4.55pm)
But the sentencing bill in the Queen’s speech just proposed changing the automatic release point from halfway through a sentence to two-thirds of the way through a sentence for people serving sentences of four years or more for a serious violent or sexual offence.
And the Conservative manifesto, published just five days before the London Bridge attack, effectively just replicated this, proposing “tougher sentencing for the worst offenders” and an end to automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes.
But now Johnson is proposing new measures: mandatory minimum 14-year sentences for serious terrorist offences, and no early release at all for all terrorism and extremism offences. (See 9.13am.)
From LBC’s Theo Usherwood
Just as an aside, it's been more than two weeks since I've done a purely Brexit story in this election campaign.
— Theo Usherwood (@theousherwood) December 2, 2019
Racism, the NHS, telling the truth (or not), police numbers, Twitter take-overs, polls, terror, and tomorrow Trump.
But Brexit. That's been strangely quiet.
In a powerful article for the Guardian Dave Merritt, whose son Jack was killed on Friday in the London Bridge terror attack, has said that Jack would have been furious to see his death being used to justify making penal policy more draconian. Here is an extract:
If Jack could comment on his death – and the tragic incident on Friday 29 November – he would be livid. We would see him ticking it over in his mind before a word was uttered between us. Jack would understand the political timing with visceral clarity.
He would be seething at his death, and his life, being used to perpetuate an agenda of hate that he gave his everything fighting against. We should never forget that. What Jack would want from this is for all of us to walk through the door he has booted down, in his black Doc Martens.
That door opens up a world where we do not lock up and throw away the key. Where we do not give indeterminate sentences, or convict people on joint enterprise. Where we do not slash prison budgets, and where we focus on rehabilitation not revenge. Where we do not consistently undermine our public services, the lifeline of our nation. Jack believed in the inherent goodness of humanity, and felt a deep social responsibility to protect that. Through us all, Jack marches on.
And here is the article in full:
Updated
Johnson insists he opposed early release for terrorists long before London Bridge attack
Boris Johnson has been saying more about the London Bridge attacks this afternoon in interviews with reporters. Here are the main points he has been making.
- Johnson has rejected claims that he has been opportunistically exploiting the London Bridge attack for political purposes. Dave Merritt, whose son Jack was one of the two young prisoner rehabilitation specialists killed in the attack, has urged politicians not to use the attack as a pretext to introduce more draconian penal policies. Without referring directly to Merritt’s comments, Johnson responded by stressing that his commitment to longer sentences for serious offenders was longstanding. He said:
Of course, I feel, as everybody does, a huge amount of sympathy for the loss of Jack Merritt’s family, and indeed for all the relatives of Jack and Saskia [Jones], who perished at London Bridge.
But, be in no doubt, I’ve campaigned against early release and against short sentences for many years. It was in my manifesto in 2012 when I was mayor of London. I said it in August and it’s in the Queen’s speech. In fact, there’s a bill we’ve got ready to go in the Queen’s speech to stop automatic early release for serious and violent offenders.
And I do think, unfortunately, that is the problem that we face. We have too many people who are released automatically on to our streets and we need to address that.
- Johnson claimed it was “pretty obvious” that the killer, Usman Khan, was not suitable for early release. Asked whether someone like Khan could ever be de-radicalised, he said:
That is a very profound question and there is an issue there that we need to talk about frankly as a society and when we look at some of the problems that we come across in trying to de-radicalise people, we have to face the grim reality that in some cases it is really very difficult.
I think this was one of those cases and, alas, I think it also was pretty obvious from the kinds of things he was saying and continued to say that he was not really a suitable candidate for automatic early release.
Yet under the law as it stood when he was sentenced, that was the 2008 legal system, there was no parole board, no probation system, there was no means of reviewing his release - he was just sprung automatically.
He also claimed that it was clear from the outset that Khan was not suitable for rehabilitation.
There are unquestionably some cases which are just too tough to crack and alas [Khan] appears to have been one of them, and I’m afraid it was probably clear from the outset that that would be so.
- Johnson criticised the appeal court’s decision to reduce Khan’s sentence. He said:
I think any impartial assessment of the situation would concede that [Khan] was sentenced to a period in prison – 16 years plus five years on licence – and then was subject to automatic early release having served eight years altogether.
And I don’t think that was long enough in view of the gravity of his offence – which was to conspire to blow up the stock exchange and to cause other types of mayhem – and in view of the view that was taken of him by the initial sentencing judge, Judge Wilkie, and looking at what the judge had to say about him it’s clear he was viewed as a very serious threat.
Updated
Welfare cuts were needed to avoid mass unemployment during austerity period, says Scottish Tory leader
Welfare cuts were necessary to avoid mass unemployment during the austerity era, Jackson Carlaw, the interim Scottish Conservative leader, has said. On a BBC Radio Scotland phone-in, asked to explain why food bank use had gone up so much while the Conservatives had been in power, Carlaw replied:
During the course of the recession, when the priority was to try to ensure we kept as many people in work, we froze the level at which earnings were able to rise, some benefits were frozen during that period as well.
We managed to avoid the crisis in poverty and pain that would have come from mass unemployment.
We are putting in place the actions to allow the cap and the freeze on benefits to be removed and to give people more money.
Carlaw argued the country was “now at the end of that period of austerity” and he said the Conservatives were now planning changes to the welfare system. He said:
We need to be less draconian, frankly, in some of the assessment criteria that there have been for people during this period and the manifesto commits to reducing all of that.
It also commits to reducing the penalty that will be imposed for any kind of abuse of benefits because I think [they] also – through the sometimes-inadvertent actions of people – have been deeply unfair.
The Tory manifesto does commit the party to reducing the number of reassessments a disabled person must go through when claiming benefits, if a change in their condition is unlikely.
But the manifesto does not say anything specific about reducing the sanctions imposed on people who abuse the benefits system. I’ve asked the Scottish Conservatives to clarify what Carlaw was referring to when he raised this point in the phone-in, and I will post the reply when I get one.
UPDATE: A Tory source says, when Carlaw spoke about the penalty being reduced for benefits abuse, he was just referring to the manifesto commitment to reduce the number of assessments disabled people need to undergo.
Updated
Phillip Lee, the former Tory justice minister who is now a Lib Dem candidate and justice spokesman for new party, has intensified his criticism of Boris Johnson’s response to the London Bridge terror attack. Expanding on what he told Sky News this morning (see 9.13am), Lee told PA Media:
The desperate, sort of, politicisation of this by Boris Johnson – not a man who is known for details – wading into something which is actually quite complex is not appropriate.
Particularly so shortly after the terrible loss of life of these two young people.
Asked if he believed Johnson had tried to use the aftermath of the attack for political advantage in the election, Lee said:
No, I think he knew that he was vulnerable on it, so he got out ahead of it.
But the problem is, like he’s been doing on virtually every issue, he has been misleading and lying in the process.
Lee said the issues raised by the case of Usman Khan were complex.
Everybody, right-minded people, want to see people like Usman Khan locked up and kept away from broader society, but to do that you have got to have the prison places, you have got to have the capacity to make the right decisions.
This has long been a problem. We do need sentencing reform. We do need to make prison a place for serious criminals and people with violent intent like Usman Khan.
To do so, though, you have got to have the police, the courts and probation services working well, and we are not there yet.
Updated
The Scottish Labour leader, Richard Leonard, has claimed there could be a swing of undecided voters toward his party. Speaking to PA Media, he said that polling should be taken “with a pinch of salt”. He went on:
There’s a technical point about polls, they don’t record undecided or ‘don’t knows’, so there’s a potential skewing of results coming from polls which doesn’t reflect where people are.
I’m still knocking on doors where people haven’t made their mind up yet.
Updated
Sinn Féin's voice heard 'loud and clear' even though it does not take its seats, says Mary Lou McDonald
Mary Lou McDonald, the Sinn Féin leader, has said that her party’s voice is heard “loud and clear” at Westminster despite the fact that the party does not take its seats in the Commons. Speaking at the Sinn Féin manifesto launch in Derry, she said:
The farce of a notion that you go into the house of chaos at Westminster and even your wits with Jacob Rees-Mogg as he reclines on the green benches and snoozes off is fanciful.
It is also a little dishonest - I don’t think we should be misleading people in this election because the stakes are very high.
McDonald argued that her party’s “relentless representation” had been heard in Dublin, Brussels and Washington and helped inform the EU’s negotiating stance on Brexit.
The voice of the north has been heard loud and clear, never more loudly I would say, not only heard it has been heeded, it has been acted on.
McDonald also rejected suggestions that Irish MPs could go to Westminster and stop Brexit. Pointing to the DUP’’s record, she said:
That matter has been decided by the English public and will be decided and shaped in the first instance by their elected representatives.
Updated
On the subject of Nigel Farage and the NHS (see 1.16pm), this is from Labour’s Richard Burgon, who debated with Farage in the seven-party ITV debate last night.
Last night on the ITV Leaders Debate I told Nigel Farage that he was on the record backing a private system to replace the NHS.
— Richard Burgon (@RichardBurgon) December 2, 2019
He denied it. But here he is saying it. 👇
You can't trust the Johnson-Trump-Farage coalition with our NHS. pic.twitter.com/exId8epxew#ITVLeadersDebate
Updated
The truth has become a “disposable commodity” in this election, Naomi Long, leader of the Alliance party in Northern Ireland, has claimed. Long, who is a candidate in East Belfast, said this is the first election where she has felt that truth is being treated as opinion.
I have fought other elections where there have been smear campaigns, misinformation campaigns, leaflets campaigns, but this is the first election campaign I have fought where I have really felt it is as though truth is a disposable commodity.
People will openly say things that are patently untrue. I am not talking about spin, I am talking about not true, and the response to that is, ‘sure they all do that’, and that worries me because to me that is a much deeper problem in society, not just in politics.
If we start to treat truth as if it’s just opinion then we lose any sense of right and wrong, of good and bad, of who you can trust and who you can’t trust – it’s not all a matter of opinion, some things are still a matter of fact.
I think that it started with this whole idea we are all tired of experts ... if I’m unwell I want an expert, if I’m sick and I go to the hospital I don’t want to see my plumber scrubbing up to do my surgery.
Updated
Thanks for all your questions
Next up will be the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent, Libby Brooks. She will be answering any questions you may have about the SNP at 12.30pm on Wednesday.
You can ask your question via our form here.
Updated
Q: There are quite a few claims that the manifesto talks about all cars becoming electric with 80% renewable energy. However, political parties are scarce on describing how they will meet this claim. What is the strategy for green energy research, application and electric car infrastructure implementation? Jordan Bizzell, 24, architectural assistant, London
On the subject of renewable energy, the party does have some ambitious plans to shift to more sustainable sources, as well as energy-saving measures such as home insulation. It’s arguably not as ambitious as the Labour “green industrial revolution” plan, let alone that of the Greens (who came up with the green new deal concept), and credibility for such programmes can be debated. One issue is that it is sometimes hard to tell how well new energy mixes will work before they’re in place. For example, there was huge scepticism in the past about the cost and reliability of wind power … until wind power ended up being cheaper and more reliable than many said.
The party says all new cars should be electric by 2030, but also wants to invest more in public transport and active travel (walking and cycling, that is). E-car infrastructure is a tricky business in general, not least for people who don’t have driveways and need on-street charging. Entirely off the subject of the Lib Dems and on to my own interests, it’s worth noting that while e-cars are, of course, much better than, say, diesel ones, they don’t solve lots of other issues such as congestion, road danger, health issues from inactive lifestyles and so on. They don’t even solve all pollution problems, given new research into the problems caused by particulates from tyre and brake wear. But I digress.
Q: What is the thinking behind ‘help to rent’? Wouldn’t it just make renters such as myself poorer and more burdened with debt? Wouldn’t it be cheaper to limit the size of deposits? Nathaniel McKenzie, 26, publisher, London
On the assumption you mean the “rent to own” idea, this seems to be an idea to help people be able to buy a home – but only if they want to. This would be for social housing, letting people who cannot afford to raise a deposit to buy a property instead buy their social home over 30 years, by letting their rent payments gradually pay off the cost of the home. This is, of course, in part a long-term help-to-buy scheme, which would deplete the stock of social housing, But the party says it would build at least 100,000 new social rent homes every year.
Updated
In an interview with Paul Waugh for HuffPost UK, Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary, said that leave-voting seats in the north of England and the Midlands were Labour’s “achilles heel” at this election. Many people in these areas were not yet sure how to vote, he said.
Our achilles heel is in our communities, in what’s known as our heartlands, that voted leave and are not quite sure yet whether they will give their vote to Labour.
If we can engage people listening to what’s on offer, what type of Britain and country we want as we go into the future, then we are on a winner.
It’s very much a question of how we do that, whilst at the same time tackling the very real issues we’ve got over Brexit and with Jeremy in some places.
McCluskey said that, if Labour were to form a government and negotiate a new version of Brexit, Unite could hold a special conference to decide whether it would back the deal, instead of backing remain as it did in 2016.
A strong supporter of Jeremy Corbyn, McCluskey also acknowledged that his leadership was an issue for some voters. But he suggested that the media and disloyal Labour MPs were largely responsible for this being a problem. He explained:
Since Jeremy was elected four years ago, he has been consistently [attacked] in a way that I’ve never experienced before. I’m a huge fan of Tony Benn’s and Tony used to get some terrible media.
But there has been nothing quite like the vicious campaign against Jeremy Corbyn on every subject that the media could try to ascribe some blame to him. He’s been slaughtered personally, in a way that a weaker man would have collapsed by now, but he’s strong enough.
He’s been betrayed by many of his own MPs, in a way that has been difficult to understand. The one thing that we know about the public is they don’t like any divisions in any political party. So of course the whole issue of Jeremy becomes an issue within any election campaign.
Updated
Just under 15 minutes left to ask any questions you may have on the Lib Dem manifesto. Send them in to us here.
Q: Why are there so many ads which misrepresent the proportion of votes the Lib Dems received in the previous GE? I have seen multiple examples of Lab/Con marginals where the Lib Dems are trying to make people believe it’s actually a Lib Dem/Con marginal when in fact a Labour voter switching to Lib Dems will make a hard Brexit more likely. It makes me distrust the party. Matthew, Oxford
The Lib Dems have something of a reputation for sharp-elbowed practices in elections, and a particular notoriety for bar charts with very dubious scales. When I went out campaigning with Luciana Berger in Finchley and Golders Green she was at pains to show off the scale of the chart on her leaflets, saying it had been “measured to the nearest millimetre”. One confusion can be that the Lib Dems use various polls or election results.
So, in Finchley and Golders Green, while the Lib Dems were a distant third in the 2017 election behind the Tories and Labour, Berger’s chart showed a recent constituency poll which put her in second. It was a legitimate poll, so that seems fair enough. Other tactics are more dubious, for example citing council or European results as evidence the Lib Dems can win in an area. And the party has been criticised for other tricks – for example printing fake “newspapers” that look a lot like the genuine local paper.
Q: Hi, I can find nothing in the Liberal Democrat manifesto about fishing and CFP reform. Do they actually have a policy on this? Thanks. Alastair S. Edwards, 48, music and English teacher, near Jablonec nad Nisou in the Czech Republic
You’re right - there doesn’t seem to be anything in there. The party’s manifesto for the European elections in May also doesn’t mention it. I’m afraid I can’t add much, as I’ve never heard any senior Lib Dem people discuss the issue. So I’m not much help here.
Q: Introducing a written constitution for a federal United Kingdom sounds very radical, why am I not hearing more about it? How would they achieve that? Jason, 28, edit assistant, London
The party has long been a champion of constitutional reform, most obviously through its longstanding support for a proportional voting system. The party’s manifesto promises all sorts of changes such as Commons constituencies for overseas voters (MP for the south of France could be popular), giving 16- and 17-year-olds the vote, and making the Lords democratic. Some elements are, however, a bit vague, not least the plan for “a written constitution for a federal United Kingdom”. This would, of course, involve changing centuries of precedent and would keep constitutional experts in work for years. How would they do that? I’m afraid your guess is as good as mine.
Updated
At the Brexit party event, Nigel Farage, the party leader, also described the Labour claim that the NHS would be sold off to the Americans under a UK-US trade deal as “the biggest lie of this election”. He said that he hoped Donald Trump would deny this during his visit to the UK for this week’s Nato conference. He said:
I really hope Trump says: ‘America has no interest in buying up the National Health Service, it will not happen.’
Farage claimed that he had no influence over what Trump would say, but he has a good relationship with the Trump White House and it did sound as if he expected Trump to make an intervention along these lines later this week.
Updated
You have been sending in your questions about the Lib Dem manifesto which I will be answering until 1.30pm. You can share your questions with us via our form here.
Q: How exactly can they revoke article 50? I’d like someone to explain how they can legally overturn article 50 and the impact it could have on future government decisions. Suzi, manual labour worker in a warehouse, West Yorkshire
If desired, the UK could revoke article 50 but doing nothing more than writing a letter to the European council. In 2018, the European court of justice confirmed this could be done unilaterally. In legal terms, this is a very specific issue so would seem to have no bearing on future governments. Politically it would be viewed with dismay by some voters. But the Lib Dems argue that since they would only do this in the (extremely unlikely) event of the party winning an absolute majority in parliament, this would be a mandate from the people. And constitutionally they are quite correct. Whether it was tactically a good idea to promise this, as a “more remain than you” sign to distance the party from Labour, remains to be seen. Some senior Lib Dems are not 100% happy with it.
Q: How will the Lib Dems fight for UK citizens in Europe, especially retirees. Patrick Markby, nearly 70, retired chef, Montpellier, France
They would say that the best way to do that would be to stop Brexit altogether, and let the status quo continue for UK nationals living in the rest of the EU. The Lib Dems have not, as yet, got into what policies they would seek to mitigate the impact of Brexit on people like you. For electoral reasons they don’t really want to discuss a preferred sort of departure, as their overwhelming election message is to cancel the whole thing. So I’m afraid I can’t really add much.
Q: What are the strongest and the weakest parts of the Liberal Democrats’ message? Laird Taylor, Victoria, Canada
If you asked ten Lib Dem activists, you might well get 10 – or at least six or seven – different answers. They have bet the house on tempting over large numbers of remain-minded Tory and Labour voters with an overwhelming anti-Brexit focus. The other key element has been a near-presidential spotlight on Jo Swinson (the party’s two battlebuses both carry the slogan, “Jo Swinson’s Liberal Democrats”).
Both these could be strengths ... but given the way the party has slipped gradually in the polls, they have not been so far. One strength could be the revised central message to urge voters to vote tactically and help Lib Dems defeat Tory candidates in some seats and thus deprive Boris Johnson of a majority. With the Conservatives strongly ahead in the polls, and Johnson a highly divisive character, that could resonate.
Updated
Farage claims Nato will collapse if UK joins EU defence union after Brexit
Here is the main point from Nigel Farage’s speech at the Brexit party rally in Buckley in North Wales.
- Farage claimed that if the UK were to join the proposed European defence union after Brexit, Nato would collapse. He claimed that the UK faced a binary choice, between Nato and the European defence union, and he claimed that Boris Johnson was refusing to say which he preferred. He claimed that the Europeans wanted Nato out of Europe. He said:
They [the Europeans] are not just talking about building their European defence union; they are talking about flexing their muscles around the world. I find that very alarming talk. What is clear, what is absolutely clear, is they want Nato out of Europe. That’s what the politicians in Brussels want.
Farage went on to say that Johnson had to make a choice.
No man effectively can serve both; Nato and a European defence union cannot co-exist equally.
And I would say that in a world where there are some major serious threats, we need that military relationship with America today as much as we have ever needed it.
And Farage said that, if the UK were to choose the European option, Nato would collapse.
If we leave the European defence union, it becomes valueless. Because without [the UK], it doesn’t have the muscle that it needs. But if we stay, don’t be surprised if Nato falls to pieces and we leave the security and protection that America had for us, thank god, twice in the last century.
This is a relatively new argument from Farage - although it is founded on several questionable assumptions.
First, the European defence union does not actually exist yet. It is an aspiration, and EU countries are moving closer to the idea, but it does not exist yet in the form that Farage implies. This Commons briefing paper (pdf) contains more detail.
Second, it is just not true to say that Europeans “want Nato out of Europe”. Some EU leaders have reservations about Nato, but there are many countries were it is still seen as an essential protection.
Third, where European do have reservations about Nato, it is not so much because they have lost faith in the concept of collective security; it is more to do with the fact that, with Farage’s ally Donald Trump in the White House, there are real concerns that the US is a less reliable ally than it once was.
And, fourth, it is not inevitable that Nato could not co-exist with a European defence union. The Americans want the Europeans to invest more in defence, and so arguably, if the EU were to have its own defence capability, Nato would be more secure, not less.
Some of your questions so far have been about the Gender Recognition Act and the legalisation of cannabis:
Q: Does the Lib Dem manifesto have anything to say about the Gender Recognition Act? Does it want people who self-identify as the opposite sex to be able to obtain a gender recognition certificate and therefore a new birth certificate? Jane, London
The manifesto says this on the issue, in its section on equality: “Complete reform of the Gender Recognition Act to remove the requirement for medical reports, scrap the fee and recognise non-binary gender identities.” In truth, I’ve not covered this area of the manifesto, or talked to any Lib Dems about this, so I don’t know a whole lot more than this. In my defence, the manifesto is 96 pages long.
Q: Are the Lib Dems 100% banning fracking? I want to know this as Jo Swinson has voted in favour of fracking in the past, which I believe is despicable. Jules, Cornwall
Their manifesto is unequivocal on this. On its sections about a green economy four, “priorities for a first parliament”. One says: “Investing in renewable power so that at least 80% of UK electricity is generated from renewables by 2030 – and banning fracking for good.” More generally, Swinson has been keen to try and distance herself from decisions taken under the 2010-15 coalition, when she held a series of junior ministerial roles. It’s up to voters to decide on this.
Q: What are the implications of the legalising cannabis proposal? How popular is it and what do medical professionals say? Michael, 50s, manager in the charity sector, St Albans
That’s arguably a bit outside the remit of this chat, but it’s worth noting that the Lib Dems have advocated drug decriminalisation in earlier elections. The costings document for the current manifesto shows the party would expect revenues of almost £1.5bn a year in duties on cannabis and savings on law enforcement. More widely, you can – and people do – argue endlessly about drug decriminalisation, but there are plenty of experts, and doctors, who argue in favour of it, in various forms, as well as treating the wider issue of drug use as a public health rather than a criminal matter.
Updated
I’m Peter Walker, a political correspondent for the Guardian, and will be answering your questions on the Liberal Democrat manifesto today. I have spent much of this election campaign following the party around, including trips on both their battle buses. I have been covering politics since just after the Brexit referendum, and previously wrote about national and international news. Before joining the Guardian I worked for various other organisations, including Agence France-Presse, where I was based in Beijing, Hong Kong and Paris.
If you have a question you can send it to us by filling in the form here.
Nigel Farage is now taking questions.
Asked about his decision to stand down Brexit party candidates in Tory-held constituencies, he says he did not want to take the risk of a hung parliament and putting “that Swinson girl” anywhere near power.
Farage says it is wrong for Labour to say President Trump poses a threat to the EU.
He says it was Labour that extended privatisation in the NHS, leading to the spread of superbugs in hospitals because cleaning services had been privatised, he says.
And that’s it. Farage has finished his speech.
Farage says UK should reject defence union with EU so as not to undermine Nato
Farage says Donald Trump is arriving in the UK today.
He says the UK can share its secrets with America and other countries in the “five eyes” alliance.
He says the UK is a very significant part of Nato.
He says Emmanuel Macron, the French president, called Nato “brain dead”.
And the EU wants to build a defence union, and flex its muscles around the world.
The Europeans want Nato out of Europe, he claims.
He says he keeps asking if Boris Johnson wants the UK out of the EU defence union.
But the UK cannot serve both the EU defence union and Nato, he says.
He says, if the UK leaves the EU defence union, it will become valueless. It won’t have the muscle it needs.
But if the UK stays a member, that will undermine Nato, he claims.
Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters
Updated
Nigel Farage is still speaking at the Brexit party event.
He says leavers may like Boris Johnson. They might be related to one of his many children, Farage says. He then suggests he should not have said that.
But leavers should vote for the Brexit party, he says, to ensure that they get the Brexit they voted for.
Updated
Ask our experts a question
As part of a new series you can ask our political team any questions you have about the general election, and they will post their responses on the politics live blog between 12.30pm and 1.30pm every Monday, Wednesday and Friday until polling week.
Today, Peter Walker, a political correspondent for the Guardian, will answer your questions about the Liberal Democrat manifesto. You can ask your question via our form here.
Nigel Farage, the Brexit party leader, is now speaking at the Brexit party event in north Wales.
There is a live feed here.
The Brexit Party General Election Tour — Buckley https://t.co/2rXJHOQwDc
— The Brexit Party (@brexitparty_uk) December 2, 2019
Farage says he appeared in the seven-party ITV debate last night. He says it was a competition to see who could appear the most virtuous.
He says the other people in the debate were a “bunch of robots”. Their answers were pre-prepared, he says. And even their final statements; Farage complains that his rivals had scripted their final statements before the debate was over.
He says the London Bridge attack should be a cause for concern. But it should also be a matter of concern that there are 74 convicted terrorists free on the streets, and another 400 people at large who went to fight for Islamic State.
Farage says jihadists should be locked up for life.
.@Nigel_Farage goes for the London Bridge attack first.
— Kate Proctor (@Kate_M_Proctor) December 2, 2019
"Anybody concerned? Anyone else think if you're infected with a jihadi virus you should be going to prison for life?"#buckley pic.twitter.com/9DrQpiNk7I
Updated
And here is some more from the Institute for Fiscal Studies briefing on the election promises and local government funding. (See 10.51am.)
- Council funding in England has fallen by 24% per head since 2009-10, the IFS says. It explains:
Our first annual report on local government funding, published earlier this month, found that budgeted revenues to cover day-to-day spending in 2019–20 will be approximately 18% lower in real-terms than in 2009–10. After accounting for population growth, that equates to cuts of 24% per resident.
- Council funding in the most deprived areas has fallen by even more, the IFS says. It explains:
Cuts have varied significantly across the country though – and have been larger in more deprived areas. As a result, councils’ spending on local services has fallen around 31% in the most deprived areas, on average, compared to 16% in the least deprived areas. However, spending is still around 1.3 times higher in the most deprived areas as in the least deprived areas, down from 1.6 times back in 2009–10.
- The Conservative plan to ensure that people do not have to sell their home to pay for their social care could discriminate against renters and people who have moved to a smaller home, the IFS says. It argues:
The fallout in the last election might also explain something the Conservatives did say: that housing would not be counted in means-tests, so that no one has to sell their house in order to pay for the cost of their care, even after they die. Whether this is even a step towards fixing the system is debatable though, as it could mean unfair differences between people who hold more of their wealth in their house and those who hold more of it in financial assets – such as those who have traded down, or have been renting. It could also cost several billion pounds, which is unaccounted for.
- All three main parties have unfunded commitments on adult social care spending, the IFS says, “suggesting this will be an important and potentially problematic issue whoever forms the next government”.
Updated
From my colleague Kate Proctor, who is covering a Brexit party event in north Wales
Ready for @Nigel_Farage in Buckley, North Wales, this morning.
— Kate Proctor (@Kate_M_Proctor) December 2, 2019
Barry Clarkson, 79, and Alistair Sutcliffe, 71, travelled from St Helens with their knitwear. pic.twitter.com/HgdNFWHFmX
Updated
Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn and Sadiq Khan, the major of London, are paying tribute to the victims of the London Bridge attack at a vigil this morning. This is from Sky’s Jason Farrell.
Leaders and London Mayor line up for memorial to London Bridge victims. pic.twitter.com/kFl73cqcyb
— Jason Farrell (@JasonFarrellSky) December 2, 2019
Council tax more likely to go up under Conservatives than Labour or Lib Dems, Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published a briefing on the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat plans for local government funding. This is not an issue that has attracted much attention in the campaign so far, but it deserves some focus because councils provide vital services – and the gap between what’s on offer from the Tories and Labour is vast.
Although the Conservatives claim to be a low-tax party, under their plans it is more likely that council tax would have to rise, the IFS suggests.
Here is an excerpt from the briefing, which covers plans for local government funding in England.
The money allocated by the Conservatives would not be sufficient to meet rising costs and demands over the next parliament even if council tax were increased by 4% a year, necessitating a further retrenchment in services or unfunded top-ups to the plans set out.
The Labour party has allocated more than enough money to meet rising costs and demands, allowing increases in service provision and quality, although not enough to restore them to 2010 levels. That is true even if council tax were frozen – although Labour has no plans for such a freeze.
The Liberal Democrats have allocated enough money to meet rising costs and demands if council tax is increased by 2% a year – although only if some the funding earmarked for bus services, youth services or homelessness is used to meet these pressures.
Of course, there would be less need for council tax rises under Labour because local authorities would be getting more funding as a result tax increases imposed by Labour elsewhere in the system.
Updated
Sturgeon says SNP would want to be included in Brexit talks with EU under Labour
In her BBC phone-in Nicola Sturgeon said she would like to see the SNP represented in the talks with the EU that would take place if Labour formed a government and negotiated a new Brexit deal. This issue came up in response to a question about fishing. Asked if the SNP would want to have someone negotiating alongside Labour on this, Sturgeon replied:
I want to make sure, in any of these discussions, the interests of the fishing industry were absolutely paramount, and that’s a commitment I would make on behalf of the SNP.
When asked if this meant she wanted “someone at the table”, she replied:
I think Scotland should be at the table in any of these discussions, all of the time, rather than being shut out by Westminster. And fishing is an example of the particular interests we have that mean that we should be much more represented.
Fishing is an awkward topic for the SNP because the EU’s common fisheries policy is hugely unpopular with the Scottish fishing industry, and the Conservatives are fond of arguing that the SNP plan to stay in or rejoin the EU amounts to staying in or rejoining the CFP.
Sturgeon said that she wanted to see the CFP “fundamentally changed and reformed”. But she also argued that the Conservatives were misleading fishermen in implying that after Brexit they would get everything they wanted. Access to UK waters for EU fishermen would end up being part of the overall trade negotiation, she suggested.
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister and the SNP leader, has been going a phone-in on Radio 5 Live and BBC News. Asked how she would vote if she live in England in a Labour/Lib Dem marginal, she at first replied that she could not say. She did not like either of them, she said:
I’m not a fan of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party. A Labour party right now, given everything the Tories are doing to this county, should be streets ahead ...
I’ve got real issues with the Lib Dems’ previous coalition with the Tories. Jo Swinson vote for austerity, welfare cuts, the bedroom tax. So I’d have real difficulty [voting Lib Dem].
But she concluded saying she would urge people to vote tactically to keep the Tories out.
What I would say is, if you’re in a constituency where the Tories hold it just now, or the Tories have got any chance of holding it, vote for the party that is best placed to get rid of the Tories, or keep the Tories out.
Survation has released a new poll overnight. Confirming an impression given by some of the polls in the Sunday papers, it suggests that the Conservative lead over Labour is narrowing slightly - although the Conservatives are still well ahead. As you all know, these figures are not necessarily a reliable guide to the election result – although they are not necessarily wrong either.
New Westminster Voting Intention - Survation on behalf of Good Morning Britain:
— Survation. (@Survation) December 2, 2019
Get the data:https://t.co/TNywp2GfrF pic.twitter.com/HBdUnxx7Fn
Voting intention trend since November 18th: pic.twitter.com/VAjNQAvHRu
— Survation. (@Survation) December 2, 2019
Why is Labour doing better in polling?
— Survation. (@Survation) December 2, 2019
Increased vote share among Remain voters:
Almost half of respondents who voted remain in 2016 currently stating a vote choice now say they will vote Labour +10 over 2 weeks ago. pic.twitter.com/FJUh0BFmP6
Anthony Wells at UK Polling Report has a good summary of the Sunday newspaper polling here.
Updated
Here is the BBC’s Norman Smith on the Tory argument that the last Labour government was soft on terrorism.
Hmmm... can criticise last Labour Govt for many things...but surely not being soft on terror ??
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) December 2, 2019
ID cards, control orders, detention without trial etc etc....
Former Tory justice minister says Johnson's call for longer jail sentences for terrorists unrealistic
Good morning. I’m Andrew Sparrow, taking over from Amy Walker.
Here is the full quote from Phillip Lee earlier (see 8.20am) about Boris Johnson’s call for longer jail sentences for terrorists following the London Bridge attack on Friday. Lee, a Tory justice minister from 2016 until he resigned over Brexit in 2018, said Johnson was not being realistic because there weren’t enough prison places for this sort of policy. Lee is now the Lib Dem justice spokesman and the party’s candidate in Wokingham, where he is hoping to unseat the Tory Brexiter John Redwood.
Lee told Sky News:
It’s a statement of the obvious, particularly in retrospect, to say that these sorts of people you want to lock up for longer. Of course, and the same applies to child sex offenders. [Boris Johnson] is just pressing buttons. We know this is the Trump playbook. The practical reality is it’s extremely difficult to do that if you haven’t got the prison places. And we never really had enough prison places in all the time I was a justice minister.
You can address this by investing in it, investing in the courts, particularly investing in probation, because it’s a cycle – from police, courts, probation. They’ve all got to be working well if you want to reduce crime, reduce pressure on prison, and be able to lock up the people like Usman Khan for much longer, indeed for ever.
This is what Johnson said on Saturday about sentencing after the London Bridge attack.
If you are convicted of a serious terrorist offence, there should be a mandatory minimum sentence of 14 years – and some should never be released.
Further, for all terrorism and extremist offences the sentence announced by the judge must be the time actually served – these criminals must serve every day of their sentence, with no exceptions.
These two polices both go further than what Johnson was proposing in the Conservative published less than a week earlier. In the manifesto, on sentencing, the Tories were just calling for “tougher sentencing for the worst offenders” and an end to automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes.
Updated
The justice secretary, Robert Buckland, has reasserted the prime minister’s pledge to implement tougher sentences for prisoners convicted of terrorist or extremism offences.
His comments came after the family of one of the victim’s of Friday’s attack near London Bridge asked for their son’s death not to be used for kneejerk political reaction.
Speaking to BBC Radio Four’s Today programme, Buckland said:
We have to be very clear-eyed with this type of offender.
Public protection and the need to make sure we are safe has to be the number one priority. The prime minister was right to say he wants us to look again at the sentencing of terrorism offences and to make sure that they are as effective as possible.
Updated
More criticism is being directed at the government’s own policies, after Boris Johnson tried to blame Labour for the release of a terrorist who stabbed two people to death on Friday.
The Lib Dem justice spokesman, Dr Phillip Lee, who served as a justice minister in Theresa May’s government, accused the prime minister of taking from the “Trump playbook”, adding that Conservative plans to extend prison sentences would be “extremely difficult” to put into practice because of a lack of prison spaces.
“We never really had enough prison places in all the time I was a justice minister,” the former Conservative MP told Kay Burley on Sky News’ flagship breakfast show.
Lee argued that investment in police, the courts and probation had “all got to be working well” in order to bolster the criminal justice system so that we are “able to lock up people like Usman Khan for much longer, indeed forever”.
"We never really had enough prison places in the whole time I was a justice minister."
— Kay Burley (@KayBurley) December 2, 2019
In the wake of the #londonbridgeattack, the Lib Dem candidate @DrPhillipLee, says the prison system needs more investment. MR#KayBurley at #Breakfast pic.twitter.com/dKHLDDtpSZ
Updated
Labour’s shadow transport secretary, Andy McDonald, has been talking to BBC Radio 5 Live this morning, after the party announced plans to cut rail fares.
Asked to justify plans to use funds from vehicle excise duty that had formerly been earmarked for road-building to subsidise cheaper rail fares, McDonald said: “You cannot road-build your way out of a climate crisis.”
He added that concerns over the environmental emergency “is what will be delivering my thinking if I’m going to take over at the Department for Transport”.
The proposal would immediately reduce the price of season tickets and other regulated fares by a third, as well as simplifying the ticketing system across the country, according to Labour.
Updated
Former Parole Board chief criticises 'silly political point-scoring' after London Bridge attack
Morning, Amy Walker here, I’ll be taking over the politics liveblog for the next hour or so.
Nick Hardwick, the former head of the Parole Board, has criticised government changes to the criminal justice system after the London Bridge attacker Usman Khan was released from prison under licence.
“The cuts and reorganisations of the prisons and probation service have made them much less able to do their jobs and keep the rest of us safe,” Hardwick told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
“We’ve neglected the criminal justice system for too long and now the chickens are coming home to roost.”
The comments came after Boris Johnson was criticised on Sunday for his attempt to turn the attack into an election issue, blaming Labour for Khan’s early release.
Hardwick described what he called “silly political point-scoring” as “deeply disrespectful to the family and friends of the people who were killed”.
He also argued that “day-to-day engagement” was needed to help rehabilitate prisoners. He added: “Simply addressing policing, simply addressing sentencing won’t work, it’s a pipeline.”
Updated
Vigil to be held in London for London Bridge victims
PA Media reports a vigil will be held to pay tribute to the victims killed in the London Bridge terror attack and to honour the emergency services and members of the public who responded to the incident.
Former University of Cambridge students Saskia Jones, 23, and Jack Merritt, 25, were fatally stabbed by 28-year-old convicted terrorist Usman Khan in Friday’s attack.
The London mayor, Sadiq Khan, will be among those due to gather at 11am on Monday at a remembrance service at Guildhall Yard, where Londoners will be able to lay flowers.
It comes as West Midlands police said a 34-year-old man arrested in Stoke-on-Trent on suspicion of preparation of terrorist acts had been recalled to prison due to a suspected breach of his licence conditions.
Updated
What’s happening today:
- Labour has announced what it is billing as the biggest ever plan to cut rail fares, promising to immediately reduce the price of season tickets by a third. Jeremy Corbyn will be in London to talk rail policies.
- Boris Johnson will be in the south of England before he heads to a rally in the east of England.
- The Lib Dem justice spokesman, Phillip Lee, will be in London to talk about mental health initiatives.
- Nigel Farage will campaign in North Wales.
- Nicola Sturgeon will visit Lockerbie, where she will warn that rural Scotland is among the areas most at risk from a bad Brexit deal.
- Sinn Féin will launch its manifesto in Derry.
- Ukip will launch its manifesto in London.
Updated
And a new political ad from the Conservatives last night.
Only Boris Johnson and the Conservatives can be trusted to keep Britain safe. #VoteConservative pic.twitter.com/KISoXqRmz7
— Conservatives (@Conservatives) December 1, 2019
In light of the plea from Jack Merritt’s family that his death not be used for political ends, there are some interesting front pages today.
David Merritt, the father of the man killed in the attack, has taken issue with the front pages of the Mail and Express, urging them not to use his son’s death “to promote your vile propaganda”.
Don’t use my son’s death, and his and his colleague’s photos - to promote your vile propaganda. Jack stood against everything you stand for - hatred, division, ignorance. https://t.co/R8LO16lugk
— David Merritt (@butwhatifitsall) December 1, 2019
And, in very different coverage, here’s the front page of today’s Cambridge News, which is the paper from the town that Merritt and the other victim Saskia Jones studied and lived.
We are including Cambridge News in tonight’s #TomorrowsPapersToday
— Helena Wilkinson (@BBCHelena) December 1, 2019
Cambridge News: They tried to make the world a better place #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/UlCFpUPNTD
Updated
Swinson condemns Johnson over Trump friendship ahead of London visit
Good morning and welcome to the first day of the last full week of the election campaign. We’re in the home stretch now, folks.
Yesterday was a big day for politicians being controversial on TV. Boris Johnson was accused of using his extended sit-down with Andrew Marr to make the London Bridge attacks political, by laying the blame for the release of the attacker at Labour’s feet, despite pleas from the family of one of the victims not to exploit victims’ deaths.
Meanwhile, party leaders attacked the prime minister for his closeness to Donald Trump in a seven-way TV debate on the eve of the US president’s visit to the UK for a Nato summit.
Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru all expressed concern about Johnson’s relationship with Trump, with Nicola Sturgeon saying he should “sup with a very long spoon” when dealing with the president.
Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, was applauded for a speech condemning Trump for his comments on women and religious minorities, while Richard Burgon, Labour’s shadow justice secretary, accused Trump and Johnson of “conspiring” together.
Swinson said:
It seems like there’s three people in the special relationship. Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Donald Trump.
We obviously have a hugely important relationship with the US. But make no mistake, the current occupant of the White House is not somebody who shares our values.
This is someone who has boasted about sexually assaulting women, whose policies are discriminatory against people from different religious backgrounds and is separating parents from their children at the border. And we should be very careful with that relationship. The last thing we should have done is roll out the red carpet for a state visit.
We’ll be bringing you the political news throughout the day and into the night, thanks for reading along. You can reach me on Twitter here, get in touch with any comments, questions, jokes, before I hand over the blog to my colleague in the next hour or so.
Updated
