tonight, political chaos threatens in pakistan as the results don't go the military�*s way and jailed imran khan's candidates surge into the lead. cheering in the teeth of violence and claims of vote rigging, will democracy win out in pakistan? imran khan's injail, so his supporters tonight released an ai—generated victory speech.

we'll hearfrom imran khan's former advisor, and a columnist and scholar of south asian politics who is a former civil servant in pakistan. the surgeon whistle—blower who says he was sacked for calling out his nhs trust for prioritising tooth extractions over cancer patients to hit performance targets. delaying the treatment of any patient with cancer puts them at harm. it's indefensible and it's something you cannot do in any trust, anywhere, anytime. and in the week of keir starmer�*s £28 billion a year green u—turn, and rishi sunak�*s entanglement in the trans issue, we'll ask if the needle has moved, or even quivered on that stubborn election swingometer. good evening. pakistan is in political chaos tonight after an election mired in violence and allegations of poll

rigging, in which the military tried and failed to control the outcome. despite their preferred candidate, the pakistan muslim league's nawaz sharif, claiming a fourth victory, independents loyal to his rival, the jailed former prime minister imran khan, who were not allowed to campaign under his party's name, have emerged as the largest political force. tonight there is no government in pakistan. sharif has both claimed victory and admitted that he needs a coalition to form a majority. here's joe inwood. this this was not supposed to happen. their leader was imprisoned. their party was shut down, forced to run as independents. even their symbol, the cricket bat, was banned from ballot papers. yet, somehow last night it was supporters of imran khan who were celebrating. for some, a triumph of democracy.

after all of that, the fact that they were able to muster the kind of performance that they did is a testament to two things, in my view. one, pakistan's people believe and own up to the fact that they have a right to elect a democratically elected government. and two, that they have immense resilience and immense faith in the democratic process, to come out and vote, despite everything that was thrown in their way to prevent them from exercising their right to vote. but it was also testament to the failure of the army to cope with the technology and techniques of imran khan's party. just tonight his party released this ai—generated victory message from theirjailed leader, something they've done throughout the campaign. it's very cleverly used ai—generated clips of imran khan

to exhort voters to go to the polls. they asked on polling day, when the internet shutdown was announced, they asked people to turn off the passwords on their internet so that when people were out in neighbourhoods and seeking information about who to vote for, they had access to the internet even though they didn't have it through their mobile phones. it is widely accepted that there were attempts at vote rigging but this was analog interference in a digital election and it failed. i think the military establishment has long looked to its intelligence services to give it information about how its game plan was working and clearly, in this instance, its game plan has gone horribly wrong. that plan was thought to be for this man, nawaz sharif, to win. he always denied it but was widely considered the army's choice. tonight, he spoke to his supporters. "we don't have enough of a majority

to run the government ourselves," he says. "we invite other parties and candidates to work with us." pakistan has ended up with a fragmented parliament, with the largest block made up of supporters of imran khan, but all sitting as independents. i think it's potentially a very serious situation because what you've got essentially is a situation in which the most popular party, the pti, in spite of all the measures to prevent it winning, has, if not actually won, it's sort of performed extraordinary well. you face a situation where there might be a coalition of the two less popular parties, backed by the army, with a lot of the people feeling that they've essentially been disenfranchised. to my mind that poses a really serious potential problem. and the risk of instability in pakistan matters. to the east, her great rival, india. conflict never seems far away between the two

nuclear powers. to the west, iran. and to the north, afghanistan, where the taliban's return will have emboldened their pakistani cousins. while domestically, things are little better. pakistan is currently experiencing an acute economic crisis and, you know, the cost of living crisis, particularly, soaring inflation, and really unless the government or the new government, you know, moves rapidly towards addressing some of these problems we could well see unrest on the streets. tonight, those predictions seem like they may be coming to pass. these are unpredictable, potentially dangerous times for pakistan. much depends on the final count in these elections and how pakistan's powerful military decides to react. earlier this evening i spoke to zulfikar bukhari,

current advisor the chairman of the pakistan tehreek—e—insaf party, and former special assistant to imran khan. i asked him about the former leader's next move. it would be to be appeal all the cases, 100 cases,— cases, 100 cases, illegally, we believe, cases, 100 cases, illegally, we believe. the — cases, 100 cases, illegally, we believe, the result _ cases, 100 cases, illegally, we believe, the result of- cases, 100 cases, illegally, we believe, the result of the - believe, the result of the candidates have been changed. there are about 100 cases which will go to court and contesting them and hoping to get overturned. i don't think, knowing imran khan, and throwing the ethos of the political party, i don't think there will be any coalition forforming a don't think there will be any coalition for forming a government with the other main parties. however, we will be forming a coalition with the government to be in parliament. not as an independent but under one banner, one party.

how long, do you think, could pakistan stand uncertainty? you know, there was violence during the election campaign. there's been all the allegations of vote rigging. the military didn't get its way. so there's going to be instability. i think the instability will still continue simply because of the reason that whichever alliance is made, the whole structure of government is trying to be formed with 40, 50 seats from each other party. it's again going to lead to exactly what we've seen in the last 16 months, which is all the parties combined against us. and it didn't work the first time. pakistan saw a massive rise in inflation, the dollar against the rupee went from 190 rupees, to nearly 400 rupees. i think you're going to see the same thing, you're going to see we know of course imran khan has been sentenced to 1a years. what are the chances of a release? i think the minute we get to a higher court, the sentences were given in a lower court,

but the minute we get to a higher court, the supreme court, we are extremely confident that he will be released and a lot of the charges, if not all, will be thrown out on legal merit and procedural merit. will he call, do you think, for peace in the countryjust now? we've always called for peace. we've never wanted anything but peace, but the only thing is that peace doesn't mean staying silent. peace, we want peaceful protest, whenever we've had one. we've always wanted to be able to express, the freedom of expression peacefully. so, providing that the courts take every candidate that has been mistreated and the people's mandate that has been stolen from them is restored, we will continue to go by the political and legal manner as we always have done. and finally, david cameron raised, and in a statement, serious concerns about what people in pakistan have raised about the possibility of the unfairness of the vote.

yes, i retweeted back to mr david cameron for his very gracious, kind words towards what's happening in pakistan. but david cameron and many other politicians have only cited the last 48 hours in pakistan over the elections. don't forget, whatever atrocities we've seen in the past 48 hours, they've only happened because we've allowed the last 18 months, the human rights abuse and the last 18 months with imran khan and his party members, to happen. if we didn't allow those at those times, the last 48 hours wouldn't have been such a sham election as we saw. thank you forjoining us. joining me now is ayesha siddiqa, a research fellow at soas who has experience in public policy in pakistan's civil service. ayesha was also advisor to the chairman of the national accountability bureau, an anti—corruption body in pakistan. thank you for coming in. all the

candidates of imran khan's party had to stand as independents. are you surprised therefore at the level of success? i surprised therefore at the level of success? . ., , , success? i am not but definitely the arm is. success? i am not but definitely the army is. they have _ success? i am not but definitely the army is. they have done _ success? i am not but definitely the army is. they have done everything | army is. they have done everything in their power to make sure people don't vote. and yet people came out with a lot of passion to vote. you heard there _ with a lot of passion to vote. you heard there the _ with a lot of passion to vote. you heard there the possibility is they will try and make a new party, i suppose that is what has to happen, if you have to go into parliament you have to come up with a new name and they will try and get it but it is possible nawaz sharif will make a coalition which will stick and therefore imran khan's party will be shut out. ~ . . . therefore imran khan's party will be shut out. ~ ., ., ., ,, ., , shut out. what nawaz sharif is ho - in: shut out. what nawaz sharif is hoinu is shut out. what nawaz sharif is heping is some _ shut out. what nawaz sharif is hoping is some of— shut out. what nawaz sharif is hoping is some of these - hoping is some of these independents, associated either with the pti or all so... 10—15

independents who are not related with the nawaz sharif party so he will try and contort his party. also sit with the pakistan people's party, and whatever other parties will sit with him and make a government then.— will sit with him and make a government then. will sit with him and make a covernment then. ., �* , government then. however let's say that doesn't — government then. however let's say that doesn't happen, _ government then. however let's say that doesn't happen, what - government then. however let's say that doesn't happen, what is - government then. however let's say that doesn't happen, what is the - that doesn't happen, what is the next move in the chess game as far as the military is concerned? i am not suggesting — as the military is concerned? i —n not suggesting making a coalition government would be easy. i think the pakistan people's party will demand its pound of flesh. maybe they expect that the reader to become the prime minister inside of the was sharif but there's also the possibility that there is always a lot of pressure on the ppp not to sit in coalition with no was sharif which means either the pakistan people's party talks to pti, or pti

actually struggles to ensure that their leader is set free. but actually struggles to ensure that their leader is set free.- their leader is set free. but you heard there. — their leader is set free. but you heard there, the _ their leader is set free. but you heard there, the idea _ their leader is set free. but you heard there, the idea of- their leader is set free. but you heard there, the idea of imran | their leader is set free. but you - heard there, the idea of imran khan going into coalition is not something he favours but with the people's party leader's son is a different prospect probably. definitely. in the last couple of months before election, bilawal had taken a more considered tree tone towards pti and embo can so that is definitely one option. the other important thing to realise is the military must be very nervous right now. they wanted a coalition government which could then go and negotiate another deal with the international monetary fund. pakistan needs money. i think it is a big question mark and a lot of instability awaiting us. you think the military _ instability awaiting us. you think the military are _ instability awaiting us. you think the military are likely _ instability awaiting us. you think the military are likely to - instability awaiting us. you think the military are likely to be - instability awaiting us. you think| the military are likely to be more meek now than six months ago, are

they nervous at the level of support imran khan is showing and the chances of him getting out if a higher courtjudges or the supreme higher court judges or the supreme courtjudges? higher courtjudges or the supreme courtjudges? thea;r higher courtjudges or the supreme courtjudges?— courtjudges? they will have to rethink the _ courtjudges? they will have to rethink the strategy _ courtjudges? they will have to rethink the strategy towards i court judges? they will have to . rethink the strategy towards imran khan definitely. it was a man battle, the army chief versus imran khan. they will have to set it aside and they will have to let him return into power politics and electoral politics. and negotiate with him as well. they can't push him away and well. they can't push him away and we can't wish him away injail forever. we can't wish him away in “ail forever. . ., we can't wish him away in “ail forever. ., ,, , ., , . a recurring feature of newsnight�*s investigations about failings in nhs trusts is the way whistle—blowers are dealt with. now this programme and bbc west of england have uncovered serious concerns about what happened at bath's royal united hospital when a senior surgeon raised issues about patient safety. we have seen no evidence they were ever investigated, and the doctor involved

was later sacked. the ruh says the consultant was dismissed last year for gross misconduct following significant concerns about bullying and intimidation of colleagues. here's matthew hill. serryth colbert is a driven and ambitious man. he's 6ft 4in, and a former commonwealth gold medal—winning rower. he's also a former surgeon at bath royal united hospital, specialising in the head, neck, face and jaw. but after raising whistle—blowing concerns, he was sacked last year for bullying. my genuine whistle—blowing concerns, they try and deflect all the attention away — redesignated as interpersonal conflict. there were personality clashes between mr colbert and some other staff at the ruh, and he also made several serious allegations about patient safety. as a result, one dentist was disciplined and he reported

another for treating private patients using nhs resources. he also raised concerns about the safety of some operations, but most seriously that his department was chasing targets by treating routine tooth extractions rather than cancer cases. he claims this delayed the treatment of at least 300 patients. delaying the treatment of any patient with cancer puts them at harm. it's indefensible, and it's something you cannot do in any trust, anywhere, any time. mr colbert wasn't alone in his concerns, with a fellow doctor saying, "it appears medical expertise in terms of making decisions on urgency are outweighed by managerial ideas". i've been operating for about three or four months at that stage, and all these cancer cases were being misprioritised so that managers could hit their performance targets and get their bonuses. mr colbert was told by the senior manager that he went to that his concerns deserved an "appropriately weighted independent investigation".

but we've seen no evidence that they commissioned any report into his whistle—blowing claims. what they did was to pay a former police detective to conduct a cultural review of the department. staff were told that he'd be looking at patient safety concerns as well as a culture of bullying in the unit. but a substantial amount of the report is about mr colbert himself. so, it seems the trust didn't investigate the whistle—blowing claims, but did investigate the whistle—blower. the review says that's because many staff wanted to talk about mr colbert in both positive and negative terms. only a redacted version of the report has ever been published. so we don't know whether any of the patient safety concerns raised by mr colbert are addressed in it. we've asked the hospital, but they haven't told us. we can see the review does discuss patient safety, but only the effect that a culture of bullying had on it. all those concerns that i disclosed

to him, they're not in his report. they're all cast aside. "we don't want to talk about that. we just want to look at you". they terrorised me. they came after me and assassinated my character. the cultural review by the former detective concludes "serryth colbert "should be investigated for bullying and inappropriate behaviour". many of the findings of this review, though not all, were upheld in a later investigation paid for by the trust. all the specifics are blackened out, and i can't unpick any of the evidential basis for why they excluded me, because it's all redacted and they refuse to lift the redactions. the author of the review told us, "the suggestions made by the bbc "are demonstrably not true. "as an experienced investigator, i always operate with integrity, " balance and proportionality. "in this case, i undertook a cultural review, not "an investigation, and operated at all times under the close "supervision and direction

of the hospital's executive "oversight group". he also refers to a high court decision which refused to release the full, unredacted report. it says the review was not targeted at mr colbert and that it seems likely that the report looked at a broader range of issues. however, mr colbert and a number of others we've spoken to believe the way they were questioned was unfair. a senior sister says she was asked leading questions. i just felt under fire. it was question, after question, after question. ifelt like i was in a courtroom, and ifelt like i was being tripped up. he was very hard nosed. there was no empathy. there's not much sympathy. and one staff member says they also faced repeated questions about this incident. they were asked if this photo shows mr colbert bullying them. in fact, it was the opposite. they were being consoled. i was asked a number of times

whether or not i felt threatened during that conversation, or whether or not anybody in the department had had any concerns against against him. i think it was a fishing exercise. mr colbert was dismissed for gross misconduct last october following a second report into his behaviour. it includes an allegation of sustained bullying behaviour against a more senior colleague. there still appeared to have been no formal investigation into his whistle—blowing concerns, and he believes neither report was fair and didn't include enough testimony from people who support him. but is he a bully? "serryth, if you're a big bloke and that makes you intimidating," i've been told by a senior manager. further allegations that from further senior management that, "i felt intimidated when serryth spoke to me". and when it was put to him to explain why. "it's because serryth paused when he spoke to me". hello, my name'sjames mccormack.

and there are plenty who do support serryth colbert. he's collected glowing testimonials and i've spoken to 25 former colleagues who are very supportive and say he's not a bully. in a statement, the royal united hospital told us, "concerns about bullying were raised by a number of staff "and thoroughly investigated by an independent expert as part "of a robust disciplinary process. it says, it "supports anyone who raises concerns so they can be investigated and dealt with fairly". it says, "it has never dismissed anybody for raising concerns and never will". the action against him will have cost the trust thousands in legal fees and locum cover. it even offered him a payoff if he signed a gagging order known as an nda. but he didn't. the trust has not addressed many of the questions we've put to it, including why it didn't refer mr colbert to the general medical council. that's normally what happens

in these circumstances. same number as this morning. for the past 18 months, mr colbert has been working at a hospital in wales, where he's been given a glowing appraisal and bath's ruh has now called in the royal college of surgeons to investigate safety in his former department three years after he raised concerns. the question is, "why has it taken so long"? this has been a week which might well have given conservative and labour party strategists the vapors. rishi sunak, facing polls now consistently suggesting the game is up, had to thole yet another attack from within with the ever pesky liz truss, acompanied byjacob ress—mogg, heralding the arrival of the right—wing popcon movement, while keir starmer finally ditched his much vaunted £28 billion a year tag line from labour's green investment plan, creating confusion as to the priorities,

so he has cooled on warm home insulation for example, and how quickly the money will actually flow, now less than £24 billion over the lifetime of the parliament. meanwhile, both men were embroiled in a trans row at pmq's as the parents of murdered teenager brianna ghey were in the palace of westminster. all this in the run—up to two by—elections next week in tory—held seats. to chew on this i'm joined by ava—santina evans from the political website politichoe and from the sunday times charlotte ivers. how do you think it panned out for each of the leaders this week? bath each of the leaders this week? both of them bungled _ each of the leaders this week? exit? of them bungled it, i'd say. what was most extraordinary about keir starmer was to watch that performance by rishi sunak at prime minister's questions. he did insult brianna ghey and many trans people in this country and that was terrible, is for the conservative party and there were headlines about that the next day —— terrible comms.

but the headline was about the cancellation of green energy, it was very bad comms and not well thought through. it very bad comms and not well thought throu~h. ., ., ., very bad comms and not well thought throuuh. ., ., ., .., through. it said all down to comms? it is through. it said all down to comms? it is comms — through. it said all down to comms? it is comms and _ through. it said all down to comms? it is comms and what _ through. it said all down to comms? it is comms and what they _ through. it said all down to comms? it is comms and what they project. l it is comms and what they project. the truisms — it is comms and what they project. the truisms of politics, divided parties — the truisms of politics, divided parties don't win elections. you can see the _ parties don't win elections. you can see the division in the conservative party— see the division in the conservative party with — see the division in the conservative party with the popcon movement you've _ party with the popcon movement you've mentioned. and two, parties who flip—flop don't win elections and thai's— who flip—flop don't win elections and that's what we saw from labour. looking _ and that's what we saw from labour. looking at _ and that's what we saw from labour. looking at the polls, this is a lot worse _ looking at the polls, this is a lot worse for— looking at the polls, this is a lot worse for one down the other. someone _ worse for one down the other. someone has to win the election and looking _ someone has to win the election and looking at— someone has to win the election and looking at the elections is pretty clear_ looking at the elections is pretty clear at— looking at the elections is pretty clear at this stage. you looking at the elections is pretty clear at this stage.— looking at the elections is pretty clear at this stage. you still have to have a big _ clear at this stage. you still have to have a big idea _ clear at this stage. you still have to have a big idea often - clear at this stage. you still have to have a big idea often to - clear at this stage. you still have l to have a big idea often to engage the voters. rachel reeves is a fiscally conservative shadow chancellor. maybe it will be forgotten in the mix that we are now down to 24 billion over the lifetime parliament. but if you don't have a big idea is there a danger you won't get vote out?— get vote out? yeah what's disappointing _

get vote out? yeah what's disappointing about - get vote out? yeah what's disappointing about the i get vote out? yeah what's - disappointing about the policy is that it wasn't a green plan. it was an investment plan to get britain working again, a plan to attract... it was also a green plan, green steel, insulation for every home, which won't happen.— steel, insulation for every home, which won't happen. that's because he wanted to _ which won't happen. that's because he wanted to attract _ which won't happen. that's because he wanted to attract those - he wanted to attract those investors. he wanted to attract those investors— he wanted to attract those investors. and the (81 had absolutely _ investors. and the (81 had absolutely backed - investors. and the (81 had absolutely backed it. - investors. and the (81 had i absolutely backed it. you've investors. and the (81 had - absolutely backed it. you've now got absolutely backed it. you've now got a conservative _ absolutely backed it. you've now got a conservative government - absolutely backed it. you've now got a conservative government with - absolutely backed it. you've now got a conservative government with a i a conservative government with a more interesting and exciting policy than the labour administration, potential administration. so rishi sunak in his last green pledge has pledged more money now than keir starmer was planning to pledge. you talk about the fact that divided parties don't win elections, but popcon is the kind of thing you'd get in the postmortem months. me’ee get in the postmortem months. we've been in those — get in the postmortem months. we've been in those months _ get in the postmortem months. we've been in those months for _ get in the postmortem months. we've been in those months for years - get in the postmortem months. we've been in those months for years now for the _ been in those months for years now for the conservative party by that metric _ for the conservative party by that metric. looking at the different court _ metric. looking at the different court cases, the erg, the china research — court cases, the erg, the china research group, what else have we got? _ research group, what else have we got? i_ research group, what else have we got? i don't — research group, what else have we got? i don't remember the names. new

conservatives- — got? i don't rememberthe names. ii? conservatives. national conservatives. national conservatives.— conservatives. national conservatives. , , conservatives. i've completely lost track and it's _ conservatives. i've completely lost track and it's fascinating _ conservatives. i've completely lost track and it's fascinating because l track and it's fascinating because you have — track and it's fascinating because you have this internal debate for whatever— you have this internal debate for whatever you want to call it, the soul— whatever you want to call it, the soul of— whatever you want to call it, the soul of conservative party, that you'd _ soul of conservative party, that you'd normally see after a big election— you'd normally see after a big election defeat. but they've got a 60, election defeat. but they've got a 60. 70 _ election defeat. but they've got a 60, 70 seat majority and we are watching — 60, 70 seat majority and we are watching it — 60, 70 seat majority and we are watching it play out. is 60, 70 seat majority and we are watching it play out.— watching it play out. is there sa in: watching it play out. is there saying something _ watching it play out. is there saying something to - watching it play out. is there saying something to the - watching it play out. is there - saying something to the conservative voters, that people like liz truss, lee anderson, jacob rees—mogg, that side of the party, everyone is jostling for the after, meaning they don't care about now. so, will they get the vote out?— get the vote out? they've been 'ostlin: get the vote out? they've been jostling for _ get the vote out? they've been jostling for that _ get the vote out? they've been jostling for that for _ get the vote out? they've been jostling for that for years - get the vote out? they've been jostling for that for years and i get the vote out? they've been jostling for that for years and itj jostling for that for years and it still seems to be the case that the party— still seems to be the case that the party manages to struggle on. what this shows _ party manages to struggle on. what this shows is a lack of respect for the leadership from mps, which isn't fantastic— the leadership from mps, which isn't fantastic news for a party wanting to show— fantastic news for a party wanting to show strong leadership. it also shows— to show strong leadership. it also shows i_ to show strong leadership. it also shows i think perhaps a lack of ideas — shows i think perhaps a lack of ideas at — shows i think perhaps a lack of ideas at the top of the party. years it has been— ideas at the top of the party. years it has been said under borisjohnson and theresa —

it has been said under borisjohnson and theresa may as well. there are lots of _ and theresa may as well. there are lots of people who are more ideological in the party who want to project _ ideological in the party who want to project something bigger. talk about the misstep. — project something bigger. talk about the misstep, rishi _ project something bigger. talk about the misstep, rishi sunak, _ project something bigger. talk about the misstep, rishi sunak, over- the misstep, rishi sunak, over trans. and some say the misstep over the £1000 bet. if you want to signal that you are serious about your party and about the electorate and the people who you want to support you, don't you go and back people in a by—election campaign? you've been to wellingborough, the first one. where is rishi sunak in that? you've been to cambridge as well. where is he on this? brute been to cambridge as well. where is he on this? ~ , . , ,, ., ,, he on this? we expect rishi sunak not to no he on this? we expect rishi sunak not to go to _ he on this? we expect rishi sunak not to go to wellingborough. - he on this? we expect rishi sunak not to go to wellingborough. we l not to go to wellingborough. we expect— not to go to wellingborough. we expect him not to go to kingswood, either. _ expect him not to go to kingswood, either. at _ expect him not to go to kingswood, either, at the stage. there are a few days — either, at the stage. there are a few days left in the campaign. it could _ few days left in the campaign. it could change and he might appear. there's_ could change and he might appear. there's a _ could change and he might appear. there's a real sense of got for my reporting. — there's a real sense of got for my reporting, and i wrote about it this weekend, — reporting, and i wrote about it this weekend, that essentially the conservative party would rather these _ conservative party would rather these by—elections go away. they think— these by—elections go away. they think they— these by—elections go away. they think they probably lost them. i

think— think they probably lost them. i think they're probably right, let's wait and — think they're probably right, let's wait and see. there's a sense that the big _ wait and see. there's a sense that the big faces like rishi sunak should — the big faces like rishi sunak should be kept away and that resources are probably better spent on defending the devolved mail will tease _ on defending the devolved mail will tease that they've got or focusing on focusing on the general election marginal— on focusing on the general election marginal seats, that's where the resources — marginal seats, that's where the resources are going.— marginal seats, that's where the resources are going. we don't know when the election _ resources are going. we don't know when the election is _ resources are going. we don't know when the election is going - resources are going. we don't know when the election is going to - resources are going. we don't know when the election is going to be. i when the election is going to be. but given the bum venus of this week over the green policies —— given the bum —— given the bumpy nature of this week... it -- given the bumpy nature of this week... , , ., , ., week... it depends what side of the -a ou week... it depends what side of the party you speak _ week... it depends what side of the party you speak to- _ week... it depends what side of the party you speak to. speaking i week... it depends what side of the party you speak to. speaking to i week... it depends what side of the party you speak to. speaking to the j party you speak to. speaking to the likes of pat mcfadden, the national coordinator, he would tell you that pushing away any policy that has a figure attached to it, like 28 billion, is the best way to do it. speaking to ed miliband, who is currently in hiding, and i would be

too... his advisers would say that you have to go for the younger vote because they aren't turning to you now if you turn away from green policies. ed now if you turn away from green olicies. ~ ., , ., policies. ed miliband was out, there are other programmes _ policies. ed miliband was out, there are other programmes apart - policies. ed miliband was out, there are other programmes apart from . are other programmes apart from newsnight and he was out. that whole idea that you've got to grab every vote you can still. look at 1997, there was all of this naysaying about tony blair winning such a majority. you've still got to go for every vote. the latest poll suggests that they, labour might pick up votes from the more entrenched over 65s who have been the hardest to reach. the graphic shows that coming this way, that is the over 65 vote, now. that is the sticky one, the one that the conservatives are able to

hang onto. what does it mean if they are