growing up as a person who stammered, i always wanted to know what caused it. could the answer lie in my... dna? ironically, that's a word i find very hard to say. at university college london, scientists are also investigating whether stammering is in our genes. this hot machine will run all the processes of dna isolation. the samples will be compared with people all around the world. we're interested in what are the little pieces of the puzzle in the brain that are not quite synchronised when people speak. that would explain why people who stammer are less fluent and by understanding the biology, we understand better perhaps how to support treatment in the future. stammering has a huge impact on people's lives. many learn how to hide it. i didn't really start to tell my family till my 40s. others often avoid words

they know they can't say, sometimes even their own name. i've even had moments where i've not caught myself peter. £28 billion of unfunded spending. maybe even more than 28 billion. 28 billion maybe even more than 28 billion. 23 billion different ways to raise people's taxes. £28 billion different ways to raise people's taxes.— billion different ways to raise people's taxes. £28 billion of taxa er people's taxes. £28 billion of taxpayer money. _ people's taxes. £28 billion of taxpayer money. £28 - people's taxes. £28 billion of taxpayer money. £28 billionl people's taxes. £28 billion of. taxpayer money. £28 billion of people's taxes. £28 billion of- taxpayer money. £28 billion of tax rises. £28 billion _ taxpayer money. £28 billion of tax rises. £28 billion is _ taxpayer money. £28 billion of tax rises. £28 billion is about - taxpayer money. £28 billion of tax rises. £28 billion is about 4p - taxpayer money. £28 billion of tax rises. £28 billion is about lap on i rises. £28 billion is about lap on income tax- _ tory attacks on labour's flagship spending policy have succeeded. no more 28 billion a year on their green plan — now it's more like 2a billion over a whole parliament.

does dropping the headline spending pledge make labour's problems go away? we'll talk live to a member of labour's treasury team and the former leader of the green party, who says the decision is a total disaster. also tonight, £45 million to two private developers in return for zero investment from them into the former redcar steelworks. yet the conservative mayor of tees valley in an interview on this programme last year told you this. we have spent money as well, we have just said we were building a one gigawatt gas—fired power plant, an investment they secured. they are spending £20 million to £50 million.

ben houchen willjoin us live. and it's been a bad week for president biden. i sat down and i said, "america's back." and mitterrand from germany, i mean, from france, looked at me and said... said... you know... "why. . . 7 "how long are you back for?" there is some movement, and i don't want to... i don't want to... i'll maybe choose my words. and itjust got even worse. joe biden won't face charges for holding onto classified documents, but the special counsel says he presents himself as a well—meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. good evening. every day this week labour politicians have told you that if their party wins the next general election, their signature £28 billion green plan was still going to happen. sunday, here's shadow minister chris bryant on sky. can you clear this up? will labour spend £28 billion at any

point a year on green prosperity? it is our ambitious commitment to do precisely that. monday, here's labour's deputy national campaign coordinator ellie reeves on sky. we've always said that's subject ito our fiscal rules, because... i so it's not necessarily £28 billion a year? we want it to be 28 billion, that's our ambition, but... | i want free chocolate on fridays, it doesn't mean i'll get it. but we don't know what we're going to inherit. i tuesday — here's the labour leader keir starmer on times radio. we are going to need investment, that's where the 28 billion comes in. that investment that's desperately needed for that mission. and i've been unwavering in relation to the mission, clean power by 2030. and just yesterday — here's the shadow education secretary bridget phillipson on politics live. we will spend up to 28 billion, ramped up over the course - of the parliament, into the second term, consistent _ with our fiscal values. all right, well, that does sound like a restating of the pledge...

that is a very clear answer. well, today the pledge went — announced on the day the eu's climate change service recorded that global warming has gone above 1.5 degrees celsius across the whole year last year — for the very first time. so what does the fact that sir keir starmer has ditched the big number tell us about his labour party? and what does it tell us about the sort of government he would run if labour does win the election? ben is here to talk about the money side of things, kate is here to talk about the science and climate side of things. so what has changed, kate? labour never actually _ so what has changed, kate? labour never actually broke _ so what has changed, kate? labour never actually broke down - so what has changed, kate? labour. never actually broke down everything included in this 28 billion, meaning despite this big reduction in the headline figure, a lot of their detail plans actually remain, so within the 7.3 billion for a new national health fund, for example, they have kept funding for battery factories, the steel industry and ports to deal with things like floating wind turbines. and for the proposed great british energy, they have slightly trimmed funding for community renewable power. the

biggest cut here is to the renewable homes plan, meant tints like 90 million homes over a decade, costing 6 billion a year by the end of the parliaments of —— meant to insulate homes. now that's only going to be across the whole parliament, it will only cover 5 million homes in five years. what gun totally is all the other stuff, the unnamed investments added to the government's pledges which were going to take it to the 28 billion. did which were going to take it to the 28 billion. , , ., ., ., 28 billion. did they have to do this? if they — 28 billion. did they have to do this? if they wanted _ 28 billion. did they have to do this? if they wanted to - 28 billion. did they have to do this? if they wanted to go - 28 billion. did they have to do this? if they wanted to go to l 28 billion. did they have to do i this? if they wanted to go to the next election _ this? if they wanted to go to the next election promised - this? if they wanted to go to the next election promised that - this? if they wanted to go to the | next election promised that debt would _ next election promised that debt would fall in the next parliament, and if_ would fall in the next parliament, and if they— would fall in the next parliament, and if they wanted to protect themselves from the accusation they would put _ themselves from the accusation they would put taxes up after the next election. — would put taxes up after the next election, then arguably they had to do it _ election, then arguably they had to do it but _ election, then arguably they had to do it. but make no mistake, it's a political— do it. but make no mistake, it's a political choice, victoria. they chose — political choice, victoria. they chose that _ political choice, victoria. they chose that fiscal rule, and speaking to economists tonight, there is a degree _ to economists tonight, there is a degree of— to economists tonight, there is a degree of consternation, they argue that the _ degree of consternation, they argue that the tail of the fiscal rules is wagging — that the tail of the fiscal rules is wagging the policy dog, which does -ive wagging the policy dog, which does give them — wagging the policy dog, which does give them some frustration, especially as many economists argue that spending on the kind of things

that spending on the kind of things that would have gone on, green energy. — that would have gone on, green energy, infrastructure spending, if spent— energy, infrastructure spending, if spent wisely and sensibly, that would — spent wisely and sensibly, that would actually help grow the potential of the uk economy in the medium _ potential of the uk economy in the medium and longer term it would actually— medium and longer term it would actually be the more fiscally responsible choice.- actually be the more fiscally responsible choice. what are the costs, responsible choice. what are the costs. then? _ responsible choice. what are the costs, then? speaking _ responsible choice. what are the costs, then? speaking to - responsible choice. what are the - costs, then? speaking to businesses toniuht costs, then? speaking to businesses toni . ht the costs, then? speaking to businesses tonight they are _ costs, then? speaking to businesses tonight they are seeing _ costs, then? speaking to businesses tonight they are seeing their - tonight they are seeing their potential costs here in the form of private _ potential costs here in the form of private sector investment. i'm told it's private sector investment. i'm told its not— private sector investment. i'm told its not so— private sector investment. i'm told it's not so much the figure of £28 billion— it's not so much the figure of £28 billion at— it's not so much the figure of £28 billion at the problem, but the flip flopping _ billion at the problem, but the flip flopping and the lack of direction, and the _ flopping and the lack of direction, and the lack of certainty that has been _ and the lack of certainty that has been created here. remember, labour itself said— been created here. remember, labour itself said today that they will need — itself said today that they will need a — itself said today that they will need a lot of private investment to achieve _ need a lot of private investment to achieve their goals. the problem is that some — achieve their goals. the problem is that some in industry have told me that some in industry have told me that it's _ that some in industry have told me that it's really that public investment which was expected to crowd _ investment which was expected to crowd in— investment which was expected to crowd in that private investment. and if— crowd in that private investment. and if you — crowd in that private investment. and if you cut the public investment part of— and if you cut the public investment part of the _ and if you cut the public investment part of the equation, then don't expect— part of the equation, then don't expect the private level of investment to respond well. kate, toda we investment to respond well. kate, today we learned, _ investment to respond well. kate, today we learned, as _ investment to respond well. kate, today we learned, as i _ investment to respond well. kate, today we learned, as i said - investment to respond well. kate, today we learned, as i said in - investment to respond well. kate, today we learned, as i said in the l today we learned, as i said in the

introduction, that global warming has exceeded 1.5 c across an entire yearfor has exceeded 1.5 c across an entire year for the first time, what does that mean for the climate? labour still sa s that mean for the climate? labour still says it's _ that mean for the climate? labour still says it's completely _ that mean for the climate? labourl still says it's completely committed to clean electricity by 2030, five years before the government's target, it's very ambitious, some have called it a moonshot. fossil fuels in the uk still produce about a third of our electricity and we are talking about total changing that in six years. not everything, which some would argue it would increase renewable energy quickly, is going to involve investment, there are some things like reforming there are some things like reforming the planning system which would kick—start that, labour say they are still committed to that. as for homes being insulated, these missions are significant but one study last yearfound missions are significant but one study last year found that energy production from home insulation kind of disappears after about four years, people discover as their bills go down they might want to keep eating on a bit longer, so insulation alone was never going to get us to net zero. —— keep the heating on a longer. get us to net zero. -- keep the heating on a longer.— get us to net zero. -- keep the heating on a longer.

in a moment we'll talk to labour's shadow financial secretary to the treasury, james murray, and the green mp caroline lucas. first, if sir keir starmer today moved to blunt tory criticisms of labour's spending plans, did he open up a whole new line of attack in doing so? here's nick. a defining move that will shape perceptions of the wannabe prime minister. "flip flopper in chief" goes the tory charge after keir starmer abandoned his plan to spend 28 billion a year on clean power. "times change as we clear up your economic mess," goes the retort. this may turn out to be one of the key moments in the as yet unannounced 2024 general election campaign. at a stroke, keir starmer has deprived rishi sunak of what he thought was a prized weapon. his claims about a labour £28 billion tax and borrowing bombshell. but has labour at the same time handed the tories another weapon? does this man actually believe anything after multiple u—turns? blowing in the wind is good

for bob dylan protest song. it's not good for political leadership. and what keir starmer is showing that he is blowing in the wind because if the facts change, that's one thing for changing your mind. but you can'tjust abandon your principles. and what he's doing at the moment looks like — because it is — political expediency just to get himself elected. that's not what the country wants. we've seen the labour party commit to a different direction. "we don't need lectures on consistency from the tories," one starmer ally says. keir starmer has moved the party to the centre ground of british politics and research is showing that clearly voters think that labour is much more aligned to the centre ground and to where their own politics are than the conservatives. i think it's a bit rich for the conservatives to be giving any lectures about consistency and stability after the succession of prime ministers, chancellors, failed budgets, failed policies that we've seen. i think it's the conservatives that are the rest of the country, not labour.

——i think it's the conservatives that are the risk to the country, not labour. keir starmer doesn't like to get drawn into rows about u—turns, but those with a long perspective say he's embarking on a herculean task that was never going to be pretty. that is, to take the labour party from its worst defeat in nearly a century to victory in just five years. and to begin thatjourney, well, he had to be reasonably close tojeremy corbyn to win the leadership of the labour party. but to complete thatjourney, make it to number ten, well, he's had to junkjeremy corbyn. all in all, keir starmer is seeking to achieve in just a few years what it took three labour leaders 1a years to do nearly a generation ago. and claire ainsley believes today's announcement shows how keir starmer adapts in the right way unlike his opponents. at the time when the announcement was made, remember, it was the conservatives who were arguing for investment and levelling up, delivering on the northern powerhouse. "build back better," that wasn't just a joe biden phrase from the us.

that was something thatjohnson really stood in front of. it now seems that the conservatives have moved away from that. they've returned to a more traditional type of conservatism. labourwould argue, "well, look where that has got the country". so what labour are doing is saying "we are going to invest, but the circumstances have changed and the level of investment and the pace that we can do that just needs to be calibrated". a leader adapting to a rapidly evolving world, we are told, but a leader soon to face a country wondering whether this is a conviction politician acting pragmatically or an arch pragmatist always taking the easiest path. let's talk to james murray mp, the shadow financial secretary to the treasury, and in a moment, caroline lucas, green mp and former leader of the green party. welcome, first, mr murray. if keir starmer is frit by a few tory

attacks how will he deal with president putin or president xi? well we know with the war in ukraine that sent shock waves through oil and gas prices, and having clean energy, being energy independent is so important and that's why having this mission is a driving force behind keir starmer and rachel reeves' plan to get the economy going. reeves' plan to get the economy anoin. �* reeves' plan to get the economy aoian. �* , reeves' plan to get the economy aoain. �* , ,.., reeves' plan to get the economy aoain. �* , ., reeves' plan to get the economy aaoin. �* , ., .,y going. but he is scared of tory attacks, going. but he is scared of tory attacks. isn't _ going. but he is scared of tory attacks, isn't he? _ going. but he is scared of tory attacks, isn't he? not- going. but he is scared of tory attacks, isn't he? not at - going. but he is scared of tory attacks, isn't he? not at all. l going. but he is scared of toryj attacks, isn't he? not at all. it looks like _ attacks, isn't he? not at all. it looks like it, — attacks, isn't he? not at all. it looks like it, considering - attacks, isn't he? not at all. it looks like it, considering the i looks like it, considering the u—turn today. looks like it, considering the u-turn today.— looks like it, considering the u-turn toda . . ., ., ., ., u-turn today. what we want going to the next election _ u-turn today. what we want going to the next election is _ u-turn today. what we want going to the next election is a _ u-turn today. what we want going to the next election is a rock-solid - the next election is a rock—solid plan, to say, that you can trust us... ~ plan, to say, that you can trust us... rock-solid now, when labour is a rock-solid — us... rock-solid now, when labour is a rock-solid but _ us... rock-solid now, when labour is a rock-solid but that _ us... rock-solid now, when labour is a rock-solid but that doesn't - us... rock-solid now, when labour is a rock-solid but that doesn't mean i us... rock-solid now, when labour is a rock-solid but that doesn't mean a| a rock—solid but that doesn't mean a thing, does it? irate a rock-solid but that doesn't mean a thing. does it?— thing, does it? we are going into an election year. _ thing, does it? we are going into an election year, we _ thing, does it? we are going into an election year, we need _ thing, does it? we are going into an election year, we need to _ thing, does it? we are going into an election year, we need to make - thing, does it? we are going into an| election year, we need to make sure everything we put to the country this year in the election year is affordable and livable, given what we might inherit, and we have to be... ,, ., ., , be... keir starmer literally said two da s be... keir starmer literally said two days ago. _ be... keir starmer literally said two days ago, the _ be... keir starmer literally said two days ago, the times - be... keir starmer literally said l two days ago, the times reader, be... keir starmer literally said - two days ago, the times reader, we will need investment, that's where the 28 billion comes in. there is a trust issue now, isn't there? this

is about creating _ trust issue now, isn't there? this is about creating trust _ trust issue now, isn't there? try 3 is about creating trust and building trust with the population across britain, if we want to get people's trust, we need to be honest with them, have to say, look, if the financial situation we would inherit if we won the election this year is going to be a mess because of 1a years of conservative government, because of the tories are crashing the economy, all the damage they will do in maxing out the credit card, asjeremy hunt is now rumoured to be saying, we had to be honest about what we would inherit and that will build trust, by making difficult decisions, saying things like, where we see our fiscal rules come first, we mean it, we're being with a straight with people, but because our fiscal rules converse, because our fiscal rules converse, because fiscal responsibility is so important, we can't do everything we want to do as quickly as we want to, and we want to deliver that would knock over a plan we can deliver, afford and people can trust. —— we want to deliver a plan we can deliver. �* , ., . ., , ., deliver. but you might change your mind next week _ deliver. but you might change your mind next week or _ deliver. but you might change your mind next week or the _ deliver. but you might change your mind next week or the week - deliver. but you might change your mind next week or the week after, | mind next week or the week after, you might publish the manifesto, it won't be worth the paper it's written on. won't be worth the paper it's written on-— won't be worth the paper it's written on. ., ., , ., written on. today was the date we had to aet written on. today was the date we had to get submissions _ written on. today was the date we had to get submissions in - written on. today was the date we had to get submissions in for-

written on. today was the date we had to get submissions in for the i had to get submissions in for the party manifesto in case there is an election in may, this is the crunch time, we say, look, this is what we would inherit if we won the election this year, what can we deliver? that's why it's so important to have something that's trustworthy, affordable and deliverable. regular members of _ affordable and deliverable. regular members of the _ affordable and deliverable. regular members of the shadow _ affordable and deliverable. regular members of the shadow cabinet. affordable and deliverable. regular. members of the shadow cabinet site or audience this. we talk to business everyday and the one thing they tell us is that they want certainty. you are actually really bad at certainty, mart you? know, because we _ bad at certainty, mart you? know, because we are _ bad at certainty, mart you? know, because we are standing _ bad at certainty, mart you? know, because we are standing behind i bad at certainty, mart you? know, i because we are standing behind this plan... because we are standing behind this alan. .. ., because we are standing behind this alan... ., ~' ., because we are standing behind this plan- - -_ this - because we are standing behind this plan. . ._ this was i because we are standing behind this plan. . ._ this was on j plan... howd we know? this was on our manifesto. _ plan... howd we know? this was on our manifesto. the said _ plan... howd we know? this was on our manifesto. the said days - plan... howd we know? this was on our manifesto. the said days ago, l our manifesto. the said days ago, rachel reid _ our manifesto. the said days ago, rachel reid set _ our manifesto. the said days ago, rachel reid set a _ our manifesto. the said days ago, rachel reid set a year— our manifesto. the said days ago, rachel reid set a year ago... - rachel reid set a year ago... there's no disputing what we announced queen years ago but there's also no disputing the world has changed dramatically in the last two years. —— two years ago. and what people trust is when we are honest, we were honest about the financial situation training so much that we need to make sure our fans are appropriate for the election we are appropriate for the election we are going into. if are appropriate for the election we are going into-— are going into. if you're being honest, are going into. if you're being honest. you _ are going into. if you're being honest, you keep— are going into. if you're being honest, you keep talking - are going into. if you're being. honest, you keep talking about honesty... it’s honest, you keep talking about honesty---_

honest, you keep talking about hones , , honesty... it's about building trust with people _ honesty... it's about building trust with people by _ honesty... it's about building trust with people by saying, _ honesty... it's about building trust with people by saying, look... - honesty... it's about building trust with people by saying, look... thej with people by saying, look... the financial situation has not changed that much since rachel reeves was writing, we are doing this... but inflation is _ writing, we are doing this... but inflation is going up, we all know if anyone has a mortgage and the remarketing, people still feel the impact of the mini budget at the disastrous impact that had on the economy, we are not passed all the damage liz truss created in 2022, people are still feeling the impact now and the more widely. many energy firms will be investing because you were telling them this is really important and we are going to do 28 billion every year in the latter half of the parliament. now you are scaling back, and you're extending the windfall tax. that is going to make it more difficult for private firms to do their green investment. we private firms to do their green investment.— private firms to do their green investment. . ., . ., ,

investment. we targeted clean energy b 2030. .. investment. we targeted clean energy by 2030- -- i'm — investment. we targeted clean energy by 2030. .. i'm talking _ investment. we targeted clean energy by 2030... i'm talking about - investment. we targeted clean energy by 2030... i'm talking about the - by 2030... i'm talking about the windfall tax. _ by 2030... i'm talking about the windfall tax. do _ by 2030... i'm talking about the windfall tax. do you _ by 2030... i'm talking about the windfall tax. do you accept - by 2030... i'm talking about the windfall tax. do you accept it. by 2030... i'm talking about the windfall tax. do you accept it is| windfall tax. do you accept it is going to make it harderfor companies to invest in green technology when you're about to extend the windfall tax theyr extend the windfall tax they windfall tax _ extend the windfall tax they windfall tax applies - extend the windfall tax they windfall tax applies to - extend the windfall tax they windfall tax applies to oil. extend the windfall tax tie: windfall tax applies to oil and gas companies. this is about making sure we can pay for the investment to make clean energy in the green prosperity plan. the amount we set out, the £23.7 billion will be funded roughly half are borrowing to invest in the other half from the extended windfall tax. lien invest in the other half from the extended windfall tax.— invest in the other half from the extended windfall tax. can you give a cast-iron — extended windfall tax. can you give a cast-iron promise _ extended windfall tax. can you give a cast-iron promise to _ extended windfall tax. can you give a cast-iron promise to our- extended windfall tax. can you give j a cast-iron promise to our audience a cast—iron promise to our audience that you will not water what you have announced today down between now and the election? this have announced today down between now and the election?— now and the election? this is the manifesto submission. _ now and the election? this is the manifesto submission. this - now and the election? this is the manifesto submission. this is i now and the election? this is the i manifesto submission. this is going on the manifesto. it is manifesto submission. this is going on the manifesto.— on the manifesto. it is a cast-iron guarantee? _ on the manifesto. it is a cast-iron guarantee? whatever _ on the manifesto. it is a cast-iron guarantee? whatever language i on the manifesto. it is a cast-iron i guarantee? whatever language you use. this guarantee? whatever language you use- this is — guarantee? whatever language you use. this is what _ guarantee? whatever language you use. this is what is _ guarantee? whatever language you use. this is what is going _ guarantee? whatever language you use. this is what is going on - guarantee? whatever language you use. this is what is going on the i use. this is what is going on the manifesto. it use. this is what is going on the manifesto-— manifesto. it is not going to be watered down? _ manifesto. it is not going to be watered down? no. _ manifesto. it is not going to be watered down? no. can - manifesto. it is not going to be watered down? no. can you i manifesto. it is not going to be i watered down? no. can you give a cast-iron watered down? fir: can you give a cast—iron guarantee you a 100% hit clean energy by 2030? that

cast-iron guarantee you a 10096 hit clean energy by 2030?— clean energy by 2030? that is our ambition. that _ clean energy by 2030? that is our ambition. that is _ clean energy by 2030? that is our ambition. that is not _ clean energy by 2030? that is our ambition. that is not a _ clean energy by 2030? that is our ambition. that is not a cast-iron l ambition. that is not a cast-iron guarantee- _ ambition. that is not a cast-iron guarantee. that _ ambition. that is not a cast-iron guarantee. that is _ ambition. that is not a cast-iron guarantee. that is what - ambition. that is not a cast-iron guarantee. that is what we - ambition. that is not a cast-iron guarantee. that is what we are i guarantee. that is what we are rall ina guarantee. that is what we are rallying around, _ guarantee. that is what we are rallying around, it _ guarantee. that is what we are rallying around, it requires - rallying around, it requires business to work with us, we need to get private investment, reform the planning system, but that is what we are targeting. planning system, but that is what we are targeting-— are targeting. thank you. let's talk now to caroline _ are targeting. thank you. let's talk now to caroline lucas. _ are targeting. thank you. let's talk now to caroline lucas. thank - are targeting. thank you. let's talk now to caroline lucas. thank you i now to caroline lucas. thank you very much for being with us. if labour win the next election, there will be a national wealth fund, a publicly owned energy company, insulation of millions of homes, clean energy, they claim by 2030. considering the state of the public finances, you must welcome that? i finances, you must welcome that? i certainly do not welcome the fact that what — certainly do not welcome the fact that what they have done is totally make _ that what they have done is totally make a _ that what they have done is totally make a u—turn on a whole set of commitments that they had held and 'ust commitments that they had held and just a _ commitments that they had held and just a few— commitments that they had held and just a few days ago. the bottom line is that— just a few days ago. the bottom line is that we _ just a few days ago. the bottom line is that we know the climate emergency is getting worse. it does notiust_ emergency is getting worse. it does notjust wait until emergency is getting worse. it does not just wait until labour's fiscal rules— not just wait until labour's fiscal rules find — not just wait until labour's fiscal rules find it convenient for the investment to happen. i do not think i investment to happen. i do not think i would _ investment to happen. i do not think i would like —

investment to happen. i do not think i would like to be a labour mp looking — i would like to be a labour mp looking into the eyes of my kids or grandkids — looking into the eyes of my kids or grandkids saying, really sorry i could _ grandkids saying, really sorry i could not— grandkids saying, really sorry i could not pass on a livable planet to you. _ could not pass on a livable planet to you. it — could not pass on a livable planet to you, it was not convenient for our fiscal— to you, it was not convenient for our fiscal rules. there are things as existential threats, that is what we are _ as existential threats, that is what we are facing. james said a lot about— we are facing. james said a lot about trustjust now, but essentially trust means delivering on your— essentially trust means delivering on your word. i think nobody can really— on your word. i think nobody can really listen to labour now or even read their— really listen to labour now or even read their manifesto and have confidence that they are going to deliver— confidence that they are going to deliver on— confidence that they are going to deliver on what they have just said. the rationale, they say, is because of the state of the public finances. in the green's last manifesto, 2019, the green said they would borrow £100 million a yearfor your green prosperity plan. —— £100 billion. will you stick with that? we prosperity plan. -- £100 billion. will you stick with that?- will you stick with that? we are certainly working _ will you stick with that? we are certainly working on _ will you stick with that? we are certainly working on our- will you stick with that? we are i certainly working on our manifesto at the _ certainly working on our manifesto at the moment. 0ur deadline for submissions is not tomorrow, so i cannot— submissions is not tomorrow, so i cannot give — submissions is not tomorrow, so i cannot give you an up—to—date figure. — cannot give you an up—to—date figure. but— cannot give you an up—to—date figure, but i can tell you it will be substantially more than labour was promising because we recognise

the scale _ was promising because we recognise the scale of the challenge that we face _ the scale of the challenge that we face we — the scale of the challenge that we face. we know from the old br itself, — face. we know from the old br itself, saying that if we invest now in the _ itself, saying that if we invest now in the shift — itself, saying that if we invest now in the shift to a greener economy, it will— in the shift to a greener economy, it will cost— in the shift to a greener economy, it will cost around half as much as it will cost around half as much as it would _ it will cost around half as much as it would if— it will cost around half as much as it would if we leave it later. so there — it would if we leave it later. so there are — it would if we leave it later. so there are good economic reasons for acting _ there are good economic reasons for acting now — there are good economic reasons for acting now. we also know that public investment _ acting now. we also know that public investment crowds in private investment crowds in private investment and we know that if we are investing in clean homes and warm _ are investing in clean homes and warm homes, which is exactly what labour— warm homes, which is exactly what labour isn't — warm homes, which is exactly what labour isn't doing any more, they were _ labour isn't doing any more, they were not— labour isn't doing any more, they were not insulate all of those homes, — were not insulate all of those homes, then you get people's fuel bills down, — homes, then you get people's fuel bills down, you create hundreds of thousands — bills down, you create hundreds of thousands ofjobs, you create hundreds— thousands ofjobs, you create hundreds of thousands ofjobs, emissions _ hundreds of thousands ofjobs, emissions down. that is the greens are offering — emissions down. that is the greens are offering at the next election, and that— are offering at the next election, and that is— are offering at the next election, and that is why it is going to be so important — and that is why it is going to be so important to have green mps in the next parliament to hold labour's feet to _ next parliament to hold labour's feet to the fire if they do for the next _ feet to the fire if they do for the next government, to make sure that they do— next government, to make sure that they do deliver on their promises to be bolder. — they do deliver on their promises to be bolder, braver frankly better. lets be bolder, braver frankly better. lets you — be bolder, braver frankly better. lets you borrow 50 billion a year, for example. it was 100 billion in

the 2019 manifesto, let say comes down a bit, but it is still substantially more than labour were initially promising. what with the debt interest on that be? it initially promising. what with the debt interest on that be? it would not necessarily _ debt interest on that be? it would not necessarily all _ debt interest on that be? it would not necessarily all be _ debt interest on that be? it would not necessarily all be coming - debt interest on that be? it would| not necessarily all be coming from borrowing — not necessarily all be coming from borrowing. the other issue that simply— borrowing. the other issue that simply is — borrowing. the other issue that simply is not getting discussed anywhere in the british political system — anywhere in the british political system at the moment is the issue of wealth— system at the moment is the issue of wealth taxes. you know, the green party— wealth taxes. you know, the green party is— wealth taxes. you know, the green party is absolutely upfront about saying _ party is absolutely upfront about saying that we are not afraid to see the people — saying that we are not afraid to see the people in very high incomes should — the people in very high incomes should be — the people in very high incomes should be paying more tax. some of this can _ should be paying more tax. some of this can come from tax, some of it certainly— this can come from tax, some of it certainly will — this can come from tax, some of it certainly will come from borrowing, but we _ certainly will come from borrowing, but we also — certainly will come from borrowing, but we also know that if you are borrowing — but we also know that if you are borrowing to invest, then that is good _ borrowing to invest, then that is good for— borrowing to invest, then that is good for the economy. look at what has happened in the united states with the _ has happened in the united states with the inflation reduction act, which _ with the inflation reduction act, which has — with the inflation reduction act, which has created hundreds of thousands ofjobs, it has been really— thousands ofjobs, it has been really good for the economy, the economy— really good for the economy, the economy has grown and it has been good _ economy has grown and it has been good for— economy has grown and it has been good for getting emissions down. there _ good for getting emissions down. there are — good for getting emissions down. there are real when— whens your. what _ there are real when— whens your. what you — there are real when— whens your. what you shoma should be doing is standing _ what you shoma should be doing is standing up and making the case for

that -- _ standing up and making the case for that -- keir— standing up and making the case for that —— keir starmer should be doing. — that —— keir starmer should be doing, ratherthan turning his that —— keir starmer should be doing, rather than turning his back on those _ doing, rather than turning his back on those commitments and backing down _ on those commitments and backing down in _ on those commitments and backing down in the face of tory pressure. thank— down in the face of tory pressure. thank you — down in the face of tory pressure. thank you for speaking to our audience tonight. it's already been a tough couple of days forjoe biden. with his age becoming an increasingly central factor in voters' minds ahead ahead of the upcoming presidential election — he's attracted a slew of negative headlines for appearing to forget the names of the french president and former german chancellor angela merkel. and tonight, more bad news. joe's here, what's happened this evening? a mix of good and bad news. a 3115 page report has been published, i have not read every single page yet, but we knowjoe biden is not going to face charges for keeping classified documents. at this report does say something about how the prosecutor felt he was as a person. an amazing contrast, donald trump kept classified documents and has been charged, joe biden kept them from when he was vice president, he has not. partly because he gave them back when he was asked, but also

because it seems the special counsel to your believes he may not get a conviction because ofjoe biden's age. this is the killer quote. we have also considered that a trial, mr biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview, is a sympathetic, well—meaning elderly man with poor memory. the special counsel also says that the current president struggled to remember what years he was vice president and struggled to remember when his son had died to a number of years, he couldn't really get close to that. it comes, as you say, after some difficult moments in front of the cameras, including this on wednesday. right after i was elected, i went to, what do they call it? a g7 meeting, all the nato leaders. iwasin... i was in the south of england. and i sat down and i said, "america's back." and mitterrand from germany, i mean, from france looked at me and said... said... you know...

why...? how long are you back for? he meant president macron, of course. then there was this, yesterday. there is some movement, and i don't want to... i don't want to... i'll maybe choose my words. there are some movement. there's been a response from the opposition, but... from hamas? yes, i'm sorry, from hamas. now, allies of the president tonight see it is right he has been cleared, they also point out that his interview with the special counsel, where he seemingly seemed old and had memory lapses, came in the days after the october seven attack on israel, where he was dealing with a national crisis was not but there are some republicans are highlighting this as a reason that

he should not be in office, should not be standing again, and also thinkjustice is not being fair and balanced. joe biden is 81,82 by the time of the inauguration next january. because he hasn't been charged, there remains only one president who has been charged. that of course is donald trump. seven of those charges relate to classified documents that he allegedly helped. he has pleaded not guilty to that —— allegedly held. next, controversy has swirled around the redevelopment of the site of the old redcar steelworks by the conservative mayor of tees valley for some time. an independent report, commissioned by the government, last week found "no evidence to support allegations of corruption or illegality". it did make criticisms of the governance of the scheme. in a minute we'll ask the mayor, lord houchen how he responds to those findings. but first, with a recap on the scheme itself — and a reminder of what mr houchen told you last time he spoke

to newsnight in may 2023 — here's ben chu. when the redcar steelworks closed in 2015, it left a giant gap on teesside. a social gap, an economic gap, and also an enormous physical gap in the landscape. enter the tory mayor of tees valley combined authority, lord ben houchen. his plan was for a new industry to rise from the ashes. in 2020, he set up a 50—50 partnership between the tees valley combined authority and two local businessmen to develop the site. but in 2021, in an opaque process, this became a 90—10 partnership, with the local businessmen holding the 90% share. reporters at private eye and the financial times raised awkward questions about the nature of this deal and the profits flowing from it. 0ne labour mp alleged corruption in the house of commons. in may 2023, the levelling up secretary michael gove set up an independent inquiry. last week that inquiry

reported that the project had created manyjobs and that it had found, contrary to some of the claims, no evidence to support allegations of corruption or illegality. but it also criticised the decision making process around the deal and said, with hundreds of millions of pounds of public money spent on cleaning up the land, systems of governance do not include the expected sufficiency of transparency and oversight across the system to evidence of value for money. there is another issue where the report raises a difficult question for lord houchen. in may 2023, newsnight probed lord houchen about the finances of the deal. so we spent £200 million, but then because the government wouldn't give us any more money, we had to go and get that from the private sector, and our private partners are committing all of the money to remediate the site, to deliver investment, and they're taking on that liability. however, the inquiry said something that seemed to contradict this, saying, to the best of our knowledge, there is no formal partnership agreement that sets out

the obligations of the partners. and then there was this exchange, concerning how much the private partners had spent themselves so far in developing the site. how much have they spent so far? they've spent millions. the redevelopment of the new quay that's being built. we are not paying a penny for that, they are paying all £107 million for that. but they haven't spent that yet? we've just signed bp and... well, they are paying for it, because it's a loan, right? so they've got funding from finance and they're repaying. however, the independent review said the following in its conclusions. "whilst the partners have undoubtedly brought their skills and experience to bear on the project and have been critical to progressing at pace, there has been no private finance invested to date, whilst over £560 million of public funds have been spent or committed. the jv partners have received substantial income as a result of the public sector investment."

and paragraph 10—13 of the report states, "at thisjuncture, the partners have put no direct cash into the project and have received nearly £115 million in dividends and payments." let's talk to the conservative mayor of tees valley, lord ben houchen. he has already said he accepts all the recommendations from the review. there is 28 in total. tees valley area covers the five boroughs of darlington, hartlepool, middlesbrough, redcar and cleveland, and stockton—on—tees. thank you very much for talking to our audience again tonight. it was the labour mp andy mcdonald who alleged corruption regarding this project. the independent report says, we have found no evidence to support allegations of corruption or illegality. what is your reaction to that? ass illegality. what is your reaction to that? �* , illegality. what is your reaction to that? ~ , ., , illegality. what is your reaction to that? a that? as i said when we last spoke, there was never— that? as i said when we last spoke, there was never any _ that? as i said when we last spoke, there was never any corruption - that? as i said when we last spoke, there was never any corruption or i there was never any corruption or illegality. the fact that he decided to abuse his parliamentary privilege

by lying in parliament, and has now been proven to be lying, was i was going to come out. i am pleased we have been vindicated. it is something that has been overhanging teesside for a long time. sadly this is not the first time andy mcdonald has done such a thing. he has made various allegations against the pcc for cleveland, where he has reported him to the independent police and crime... the ipcc. all of those complaints have been thrown out. he has now been suspended by the labour party for making some absolutely grotesque statements about israel. this is a man who has a track record. he has turned his sights on me, been found wanting by making allegations of corruption which are completely untrue. unfortunately, the stain still lasts. we are here on newsnight talking about it. the only reason we have the investigation was because of the statements he made. he has refused to repeat them outside of parliament, refused to apologise. it is completely unbecoming of an mp. can i ask you what you told viewers last may, you said the private developers in the joint

public—private partnership had spent millions. that wasn't true, was it? it is true, if you look at the report, various segments of the report, various segments of the report, they have committed money... no, no, no, i'm going to pose you right there, lord houchen. you said to our audience, they have spent millions. that was not true, and we know that because the independent report says, "at this juncture the joint—venture partners have put no direct cash into the project." so what you said was untrue. trio. direct cash into the project." so what you said was untrue. no, it's not, what you said was untrue. no, it's not. again. _ what you said was untrue. no, it's not. again. if— what you said was untrue. no, it's not. again. if you _ what you said was untrue. no, it's not, again, if you let _ what you said was untrue. no, it's not, again, if you let me - what you said was untrue. no, it's not, again, if you let me quote i what you said was untrue. no, it's i not, again, if you let me quote from report directly, section 19.47 of the report talks about the fact they are paying us £50 million for a piece of land we had at £30 million, it also says there is a £50 million of their own money in a bank account to invest back into the site for remediation, they have committed millions of pounds and spent millions of pounds and spent

millions of pounds and spent millions of pounds, and also they have got significant commitments and liabilities they've taken on as a result of this deal. [30 liabilities they've taken on as a result of this deal.— liabilities they've taken on as a result of this deal. do you accept this independent _ result of this deal. do you accept this independent report - result of this deal. do you accept this independent report do - result of this deal. do you accept this independent report do you i this independent report do you accept it? this independent report do you acce at it? ~ this independent report do you acce at it? . ., , this independent report do you acce-t it? . .,, accept it? well, as i said, we acce at accept it? well, as i said, we accept the — accept it? well, as i said, we| accept the recommendations, accept it? well, as i said, we - accept the recommendations, and i am just quoting from the report. band accept the recommendations, and i am just quoting from the report.— just quoting from the report. and so am i. the joint-venture _ just quoting from the report. and so am i. thejoint-venture partners- am i. thejoint—venture partners have put no direct cash into the project. he told us last year they had spent £20 million to £50 million. —— you told us. had spent £20 million to £50 million. -- you told us. again, i can only — million. -- you told us. again, i can only quote _ million. -- you told us. again, i can only quote what's _ million. -- you told us. again, i can only quote what's on the i million. -- you told us. again, i- can only quote what's on the report, 19.46 says there is £50 million of their money in a bank account, they've paid us millions of pounds in than mount view, and they've also got commitments of many hundreds of millions of pounds. —— millions of pounds in land value. this millions of pounds. -- millions of pounds in land value.— pounds in land value. this is a direct quote — pounds in land value. this is a direct quote from _ pounds in land value. this is a direct quote from the - pounds in land value. this is a direct quote from the report. | pounds in land value. this is a i direct quote from the report. in a bank account, i mean, yeah no direct cash into the project. either you didn't understand the deal that you agreed with them and were inadvertently misleading our audience, oryou inadvertently misleading our audience, or you completely understood the deal and were deliberately misleading our audience, which one is it? again, as

i have audience, which one is it? again, as i havejust — audience, which one is it? again, as i have just said, _ audience, which one is it? again, as i have just said, they _ audience, which one is it? again, as i have just said, they have _ audience, which one is it? again, as i have just said, they have spent - i have just said, they have spent millions of pounds paying us for land, so that is what they have actually spent and paid us. they got £50 million in a bank account, as is directly referenced in the report, and something you haven't referenced is that 5.2 of the report, it specifically says they have financial commitments of £330 million, there are liabilities that previously would have been on the taxpayer. previously would have been on the tax-a er. ., previously would have been on the taxa er. ., ., , , previously would have been on the tax-a er. ., .,, , , taxpayer. yeah, liabilities, loans. the aid taxpayer. yeah, liabilities, loans. they paid you _ taxpayer. yeah, liabilities, loans. they paid you some _ taxpayer. yeah, liabilities, loans. they paid you some money - taxpayer. yeah, liabilities, loans. they paid you some money for i taxpayer. yeah, liabilities, loans. i they paid you some money for some land that they got in return. what the report says, in conclusion, there has been no private finance invested to date, whilst over £506 million of public funds have been spent or committed. the joint—venture partners, the two private developers, have received substantial income as a result of the public sector investment, and it really is substantial income, 45 million dividends and payments according to the report, that is amazing work if you can get it. well, i mean, they are fantastic

partners who have helped us deliver £1.5 billion energy project in carbon capture and storage, a major model pile officer wind manufacturing facility which is the largest investment from any south korean company ever in the uk, and let's be clear, they may have made £45 million, i am not shying away from that, but like i say, they put £50 million into a bank account to continue to pay to remediate the site and they have taken on £330 million worth of liabilities, again, thatis million worth of liabilities, again, that is stated in the report, these are not my arguments, i am just repeating, as you are, what is in the report. repeating, as you are, what is in the report-— the report. sure. so liabilities, the report. sure. so liabilities, they haven't — the report. sure. so liabilities, they haven't spent _ the report. sure. so liabilities, they haven't spent any - the report. sure. so liabilities,j they haven't spent any money, the report. sure. so liabilities, i they haven't spent any money, in the report. sure. so liabilities, - they haven't spent any money, in a bank account, very nice, they haven't spent any money. it doesn't explain why the developers are making tens of millions of pounds without investing any of their own money. that's the bottom line, isn't it? �* ., money. that's the bottom line, isn't it? ~ . money. that's the bottom line, isn't it? . ~ , money. that's the bottom line, isn't it? . ~ money. that's the bottom line, isn't it? again, you keep coming back to this aoint it? again, you keep coming back to this point but _ it? again, you keep coming back to this point but that's _ it? again, you keep coming back to this point but that's not _ it? again, you keep coming back to this point but that's not what - it? again, you keep coming back to this point but that's not what the i this point but that's not what the report says, like i say, i will go back to section 19.47, they have paid us for land, the other thing i

signed disappointing as we are spending loads of time on a detail point, all i am doing is pointing out sections of the report to you where the explicit will say they have spent money on committed huge amounts of money, but you haven't referenced the fact, really, that page one of the report, 1.2, explicitly says that because of our private sector partners we have created 9000 jobs, contracted 70% of the land and we are getting a return to the taxpayer of £1.3 billion. i mean, that sounds like a good deal to the taxpayer to me. but mean, that sounds like a good deal to the taxpayer to me.— to the taxpayer to me. but if you send to the taxpayer to me. but if you spend hundreds _ to the taxpayer to me. but if you spend hundreds of _ to the taxpayer to me. but if you spend hundreds of of _ to the taxpayer to me. but if you spend hundreds of of public - to the taxpayer to me. but if you i spend hundreds of of public sector finance, thank god thousands ofjobs have been created, it's not down to any investment from the private developers. it any investment from the private developers-— any investment from the private develo-ers. , , ~ ., developers. it absolutely is. again, section 10.13, — developers. it absolutely is. again, section 10.13, we _ developers. it absolutely is. again, section 10.13, we actually - section 10.13, we actually referenced 10.13 of the report but you didn't finish the full paragraph, it says we wouldn't have delivered any of what we delivered without our private sector partners because of the quality, skills, money, resources they put in. so you say, it's like you wave a magic wand

and spend public money, we know governments and local councils are not rate of spending public money will invested alongside our private sector partners and its says on 10.13 of the report of the development corporation would not have achieved what they've achieved without them, and we have achieved 9000 jobs at £1.2 billion back to the taxpayer. i do that every day of the taxpayer. i do that every day of the week. , �* ,., ., ., the week. isn't the bottom line that arivate the week. isn't the bottom line that private developer _ the week. isn't the bottom line that private developer so _ the week. isn't the bottom line that private developer so you _ the week. isn't the bottom line that private developer so you coming i the week. isn't the bottom line that private developer so you coming a i private developer so you coming a mile of? ., .,. ., , ., �*, private developer so you coming a mile of? ., ., , ., �*, ., , mile of? no, actually, what's really interestina mile of? no, actually, what's really interesting about _ mile of? no, actually, what's really interesting about report _ mile of? no, actually, what's really interesting about report as - mile of? no, actually, what's really interesting about report as it - interesting about report as it vindicates us for the reason we chose those partners, because it was our partners that helped a the piece of land, again, people often like to forget the fact that when the steelworks closed in 2015, it was costing the taxpayer £20 million a year, it was owned by by three tight banks, and there was no end in sight, we were about to get ourselves in trouble, we were about the compulsory purchase the site, and 10.1 of the report explicitly states that the joint—venture partners were critical, they were critical, to unlocking the thai bank

deal. if they hadn't done that, the site would still be at steelworks, it would still be close, would still be costing the taxpayer £20 million a year, no £1.3 billion return to the taxpayer. a year, no £1.3 billion return to the taxpayer-— a year, no £1.3 billion return to the tax-a er. ., ~ ,, , . the taxpayer. thank you very much for talkina the taxpayer. thank you very much for talking to _ the taxpayer. thank you very much for talking to our _ the taxpayer. thank you very much for talking to our audience - the taxpayer. thank you very much for talking to our audience tonight, thank you lord houchen, the conservative mayor of tees valley. counting is underway in pakistan after a day of elections described by some analysts as the least credible in the country s recent history. two former prime ministers have dominated the polls ? one of them barred from officially standing and languishing injail, the other miraculously cleared of corruption charges and allowed to return home. clear results are yet to emerge, but in a country whose politics is so often dominated by the military, are those named on the ballot the ones who will really take power? 0ur international correspondent joe inwood has been looking at the election of what some call a hybrid democracy. who will rule pakistan? will it be nawaz sharif three times elected, three times deposed? 0r bilawal bhutto? dynastic politics made flesh.

maybe imran khan, the cricketing playboy turned populist prime minister, now injail. or in a way, none of them. things within the country is controlled by the pakistani military establishment. the army plays a very important role. i think many would say it gets involved too much in politics. generally speaking, it has a low opinion of politicians. there is a party that is a favoured party that is brought into power. and that party understands that there is an agreement with the military with regards to what it can and can't do. i the millions who went out to vote today were taking part in what some refer to as a hybrid democracy. so which politicians were they choosing between? the man many say is the army's

choice is nawaz sharif. he's been prime minister three times before, but each time has seen his term cut short. he was facing corruption charges, but these miraculously vanished just in time for him to fight these elections. he's a sort of centrist. he's really a businessman. he's a pragmatist. he's a man who will balance us—china relations well. he's a man who will keep the imf creditors onside. he's a safe pair of hands. i want to work with the grass roots. then there is bilawal bhutto, the great dynastic choice. his mother was benazir bhutto, assassinated when he was still a teenager. his father and grandfather were both president. many see him as kingmaker this time. he is relatively young. and obviously, if the political climate, or the temperament of military establishment change,

then one day he might become a prime minister. and then there is imran khan. his transition from cricketer to populist politician to prisoner has been extraordinary. he is barred from running. his party has had their logo, the cricket bat, banned from ballot papers. it's a huge blow in a country where 40% of people are illiterate, but he is still politically important. imran khan is a fighter. you know, he did that in cricket. he does that in politics. he likes to come from down below. and he's at his strongest, i think, when he is down, and in a way he is a rabble rouser and he is going to come back stronger even if he doesn't win this election. i think he's not somebody who is going to fade away and say, "that's it, i've had enough". and so back to the original question, "who will rule pakistan"? the consensus is that the army's candidate always wins. but if that is nawaz sharif, well, things might get complicated.