The questions that should have been put to the prospective PMs

The Tories were up in arms about the biased BBC audience on the 7 way TV debate. They claimed one of the polling organisations supported them but what they actually said was that, with 5 leftish speakers to 2 from the right then it would always seem as if the 2 were being ganged up on. There was certainly a lot of finger pointing, very bad manners! Actually I suspect it was more that the left sympathisers in the audience either spontaneously, or briefed on social media, set about making more boisterous noise and so it sounded as if the audience wasn't balanced. Either way, that programme and the leaders' Question Time with May and Corbyn demonstrated that the audience should be selected on ability to ask an intelligent question, not just balance.

Of course it's the job of the professional moderator to ask the sharp follow up questions. Dimbleby tried to do it a it, but not enough, and it was Paxman's job, but he's clearly past it. So here are some of the points and questions I thought should have been put.

To May:

When you have said you stand for fairness and your manifesto made a start at trying to balance the tricky questions of funding care in old age and intergenerational fairness, why did you run for cover at the first sound of gunfire? It is clearly inequitable that an old person's house value is up for grabs if they go into a care home but not if they are cared for at home. Why didn't you argue for your policy instead of leaving it up in the air that there will be a cap but you don't know what should be? Will the cap be set to protect the wealthy, the really rich or only the stinking rich? Unless it's the last of these, how does your policy help to provide more resources for social care?

The economy is highly likely to turn down before too long. Maybe because of Brexit or maybe because of some other trigger in the world economy or just because we reach the end of a growth cycle. How are you going to be able to support businesses and individuals through a downturn when the deficit is still so high? Why didn't the Tories complete the mending of the roof while the sun was shining?

The Tories are meant to be the party of low taxation. So why are so many people in every day jobs paying higher rate tax?*

To Corbyn:

You've made a lot of hay about the Tories "dementia tax". But it's not a tax is it? A tax takes money from those who can afford to pay for the needs of the less well off and society in general, but the Tories proposals are just that old people who need care at home are treated in the same way as those who need to live in a home, irrespective of whether they have dementia or are just frail. They would be covering their own costs, which can't remotely be called a tax. Why do you want wealthy pensioners to avoid paying for their care in order to leave more money to their children? Or is that, actually, you want to tax ALL wealthy people who die via inheritance tax, so you get the money when they die whether they have dementia, some other illness or just pop their clogs?

You have supported a cap on care costs for the elderly. Doesn't this benefit the very wealthy? Indeed doesn't it benefit people more the richer they are? Isn't this perhaps the most anti-progressive proposal ever made by the Labour party in its history?

Isn't it stark, staring bonkers to talk about raising corporation tax at the same time as leaving the EU? What better way could you think of to ensure that businesses that are thinking about relocating into Europe actually do it?

You've made it clear that you would never make "first use" of a nuclear weapon and you've implied you wouldn't ever want to push the button, while pretending it's hypothetical without knowing the precise situation.. What if the Russians were overwhelming us with a conventional attack? Wouldn't it be sensible that they at least paused for thought? The whole idea is not whether you think you would push the button, but whether they think you would. You clearly don't understand deterrence or are trying to undermine the concept so you can say the weapons are useless anyway and make the case then to get rid of them - which is it?

You are very proud that you have opposed anti-terror legislation since you got into Parliament in 1983 (note 1). Would you repeal any of our protection against terrorism acts? If so which? Would you be prepared to bring forward new legislation to provide additional powers to the police and security services if they need them?

You have said "I have spent my political life working for peace and human rights and to bring an end to conflict and devastating wars. This will almost always mean talking to people you profoundly disagree with". Isn't it the fact that you profoundly AGREED with the Irish republicans? Why won't you condemn their actions, hiding behind mantras like "all bombing is bad" when they were the major culprits in loss of life?

You have claimed that contacts like yours with the Irish republicans helped to lead to the peace process. So why did you vote AGAINST the Anglo-Irish agreement which helped to convince Sinn Fein/IRA that they weren't going to succeed in bombing and shooting their way to a united Ireland and actually paved the way for the peace process?

What on earth makes you think that you could talk in any sensible way to ISIS? Not only do they profoundly disagree with you, they profoundly want to see you and your way of life extinguished. They hate all those who don't believe in Allah; and they hate our secular, liberal way of life. Their minimum demand would be the abandonment of our form of democracy and submission to Islamic law. But Jeremy, please feel free to go any time to Raqqa and try to talk them round**. We won't expect to see you come home. Isn't this a battle between good and evil as Donald Trump has said? Shouldn't you be supporting him on this issue - the only western leader to say clearly that radical Islamic extremism must be extinguished? Don't we just need to drive them out, as he said in Saudi Arabia?


Oh, some of these points and questions reflect my personal views and some are just me being devil's advocate but, having been in Warrington with one of my sons 20 minutes before the bomb exploded just around the corner from where we had been, I can't take a dispassionate view of this subject. Corbyn makes my blood boil when he dissembles and evades the point. The IRA bombed Warrington. I don't remember loyalists bombing Warrington or Manchester.

* The evidence for this is that record numbers of people are paying higher rate (40%) tax - it was 4.4 million people in 2014, up from 3 million before 2010: e.g. see the New Statesman:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/03/those-who-pay-40p-tax-rate-are-not-middle

** this specific suggestion came from Dominic Lawson's excellent column "Put the nail bomb down - Jeremy wants to talk"

Note 1. Actually it seems from what I read that JC has voted against every piece of proposed antiterrorism legislation, whether brought forward by a Labour or Tory government, on just about every occasion. Another with a similar record is Diane ("every defeat for the British state is a victory for all of us" - context Ireland) Abbott. Whereas Theresa May and David Davis have backed some and not other proposals. Davis famously resigned his seat and stood for re-election in 2008 to raise awareness of civil liberties issues, including extension of the detention period for terror suspects from 28 to 42 days. These are people with a conscience, who cast their vote with thought: Corbyn is just a rebel.
You can see Corbyn and May's full voting record on anti-terrorism measures since 2000 here