myself occasionally. one in, one out... he left number 11 just a fortnight ago — jeremy hunt is here this morning — in his first interview since the general election. and a treat in store... violin plays. nicola benedetti — director of the edinbrugh festival and musician extraordinaire. and singing for their supper at the desk with me — bloomberg economist stephanie flanders, to check out those chancellor's claims, labour mp zarah sultana, and comedian and impressionistjon culshaw. we might heara we might hear a few of them later. morning, morning.

let's check what is making the news. there is no one dominant story this morning. as we are, the telegraph is leading on the likelihood of pay rises for public sector workers. the sunday times reminds rachel reeves of the pressure on her to lift the bar on families with more than two kids claiming some benefits. and strictly makes some of the front pages as well, amidst claims about bullying on the show. let's talk about rachel reeves as we are going to for most of today. stephanie, you study the economy probably more intently than anyone else in the country, how grim is the picture for her, do you think? fin picture for her, do you think? on one level. _ picture for her, do you think? q�*i one level, the short term picture is brighter than it has been for a while. you have information that has been coming down to target and is looking fairly under a controller may fall even further and you have growth picking up. so the very short term view is we are out of the woods but then there is the fiscal

thicket, the constraints that we have had from years of subpar growth and particularly productivity and output per head also falling short year after year. that is why she talked about growth a lot on the campaign and it is very boring to talk about growth but that will be a central element of what she has to prove to people. we had some optimism, you certainly feel it in the city and global markets. britain does look like an oasis of calm and clarity with this new government, so i think there will be a fair wind but it really matters what she does that encourages private investment, shows us how she will do more public investment and also manage to put a bit more money in public services because there are sudden tight plans coming down the track. she because there are sudden tight plans coming down the track.— coming down the track. she hints at the -a coming down the track. she hints at the pay rises _ coming down the track. she hints at the pay rises in _ coming down the track. she hints at the pay rises in our _ coming down the track. she hints at the pay rises in our interview- coming down the track. she hints at the pay rises in our interview in - coming down the track. she hints at the pay rises in our interview in a i the pay rises in our interview in a few minutes. zarah, you are a labour mp but you make no secret that you think keir starmer and rachel reeves are not bold enough, not radical enough, what you want to hear? the kins enough, what you want to hear? the kings speech has many bills i want i

am looking — kings speech has many bills i want i am looking forward to when it comes to the _ am looking forward to when it comes to the new_ am looking forward to when it comes to the new deal for working people and when — to the new deal for working people and when we are talking about bringing — and when we are talking about bringing rail into public ownership. i bringing rail into public ownership. iwouid _ bringing rail into public ownership. i would like the parties to go further— i would like the parties to go further if— i would like the parties to go further if we are nationalising rail. — further if we are nationalising rail. let's _ further if we are nationalising rail, let's look at mail and water. when _ rail, let's look at mail and water. when we — rail, let's look at mail and water. when we look at the deal for working people. _ when we look at the deal for working pe0pie. we _ when we look at the deal for working people, we have to make sure we're repealing _ people, we have to make sure we're repealing trade union legislation which _ repealing trade union legislation which has led to them not being able to defend _ which has led to them not being able to defend their powers in defending the interests of their members. when i the interests of their members. when i look_ the interests of their members. when i look at _ the interests of their members. when i took at the _ the interests of their members. when i look at the kings speech, i would like the _ i look at the kings speech, i would like the party to look at scrapping the two _ like the party to look at scrapping the two party child benefit cap. the scottish _ the two party child benefit cap. the scottish msps are mandated to vote to scrap that, as well as upholding international law and ending arms sales _ international law and ending arms sales. ., ., ., , ., sales. you are not giving up and we seak to sales. you are not giving up and we speak to rachel— sales. you are not giving up and we speak to rachel reeves _ sales. you are not giving up and we speak to rachel reeves about - sales. you are not giving up and we speak to rachel reeves about that. jon, last time you are here, you are quite this obliging about rishi sunak and keir starmer. as a citizen on the panel today, how do you look

at the ryan scope now? it is on the panel today, how do you look at the ryan scope now?— at the ryan scope now? it is looking rather sensible, _ at the ryan scope now? it is looking rather sensible, really. _ at the ryan scope now? it is looking rather sensible, really. after - at the ryan scope now? it is looking rather sensible, really. after the - rather sensible, really. after the fervent _ rather sensible, really. after the fervent times _ rather sensible, really. after the fervent times and _ rather sensible, really. after the fervent times and the _ rather sensible, really. after the fervent times and the energy- rather sensible, really. after the fervent times and the energy ofl fervent times and the energy of boris _ fervent times and the energy of borisjohnson, _ fervent times and the energy of borisjohnson, liz— fervent times and the energy of boris johnson, liz truss, - fervent times and the energy of borisjohnson, liz truss, it - borisjohnson, liz truss, it seems there _ borisjohnson, liz truss, it seems there is— borisjohnson, liz truss, it seems there is some _ borisjohnson, liz truss, it seems there is some sensibility- borisjohnson, liz truss, it seems there is some sensibility and - borisjohnson, liz truss, it seems there is some sensibility and we l boris johnson, liz truss, it seems . there is some sensibility and we can pause _ there is some sensibility and we can pause. the giddy— there is some sensibility and we can pause. the giddy times _ there is some sensibility and we can pause. the giddy times can - there is some sensibility and we can pause. the giddy times can rest - there is some sensibility and we can| pause. the giddy times can rest very little and _ pause. the giddy times can rest very little and let — pause. the giddy times can rest very little and let us _ pause. the giddy times can rest very little and let us see _ pause. the giddy times can rest very little and let us see where _ pause. the giddy times can rest very little and let us see where we - pause. the giddy times can rest very little and let us see where we are . little and let us see where we are led to _ little and let us see where we are led to next — little and let us see where we are led to next-— little and let us see where we are led to next. �* , , led to next. ok, let's see where we are by 10am — led to next. ok, let's see where we are by 10am this _ led to next. ok, let's see where we are by 10am this morning. we - led to next. ok, let's see where we are by 10am this morning. we will. led to next. ok, let's see where we i are by 10am this morning. we will be back with you this morning. rachel reeves might be delighted to be the first woman to become chancellor. but for labour, and for all of us, there is an awful lot riding on her success or failure. i went to number 11 yesterday. so, chancellor, have you got used to being called that? well, actually, keir starmer used the word, he said the other day, "and this afternoon, the chancellor...", and i thought, �*0h, what's he done now?�* and then...and then i remembered it was me. so i am getting used to it. but, yes, i do have to pinch myself occasionally. last time i was on this programme was eight weeks ago and it was the first weekend of the election campaign, and i think you said to me in that interview,

"in a few weeks' time, you might be chancellor", and that is exactly what i am. and i feel very proud and privileged to be in this position, especially as the first female chancellor of the exchequer that this country has ever had. you have very, very hard work ahead of you, however. you asked officials almost as soon as you arrived to give you sort of a warts and all verdict on the state of the public finances. what have you found out that you didn't know? well, i was clear during the election that the scale of the challenge was going to be immense. it was why during the election campaign, i didn't make any commitments that weren't fully funded and fully costed — very different to what the outgoing conservative government did, where they racked up a load of spending commitments, even during the campaign. i wasn't going to do that because i knew that we'd have to make difficult decisions. and you're right, i asked officials that first weekend after the election to do a full analysis of the state of the public finances,

the public spending pressures that we're under, and i've committed to present that to parliament by the end of this month. and i will do that because i really want to be honest with people. i think people know that things are a mess. the first parliament, the last one, where living standards were lower at the end than they were at the beginning, public services on their knees. the tax burden at a 70—year high, debt almost the same size as our entire economy. so i'm going to level with people about the scale of the challenge and then begin to fix the foundations so we can start to rebuild our country and our economy. but you and some other ministers have been suggesting since you arrived in power that things are somehow worse than you knew from the outside. what is it that you have seen that has actually given you that belief? because most of the information was in the public domain — whether it was about prisons or about courts... well, i'll give you one example. you mentioned prisons. i don't think anyone realised quite how bad things were, that the prisons were at crisis point, with almost no places left for people to be given a place in prison if they needed to be there.

and the previous government, instead of making tough decisions, they simply ran away from the problem. they called an election to allow the next people to make those decisions. it makes me pretty angry that they left the country in this sort of state. whichever political party you're in, you should try and pass on, at the end of your time in office, a country and a society that is working better. this conservative government didn't do that, and they've left it to us to pick up the pieces. but are you suggesting that they deliberately called an election to cover up how bad things were on the inside? because when it comes to prisons, which you mentioned, for example, the information about what was going on was published all the time. it was in the public domain. no, no. laura, that'sjust simply not the case. i don't think anybody on the outside understood the full extent of the challenge in our prisons. let me give you another example. the conservative former education secretary, she had the pay review body recommendation for teachers on her desk when she was in office.

she didn't do anything about it. she didn't publish it. she didn't say how she was going to respond to it. they called an election. they didn't make the tough decisions, they ran away from them, and it's now up to us to fix it and to pick up the pieces and we will do that, and we will do it in an open and transparent way. i will be honest with people that there are going to be tough decisions ahead. it's not going to be easy, but i'm determined to turn things around. and it's why also that first weekend in the treasury, i said to officials, we've got to break out of this sort of doom loop of low growth, of high taxes and deteriorating public services. we've got to grow the economy. the election campaign — you'd think that the economy was just about tax and spend. i mean, frankly, that's all the conservatives know. but there's another part of the economy, and that's how big it is and how quickly it grows. and we'll come to that in just a second, but you raised the question of pay. now, we understand that the pay review bodies have recommended a rise of 5.5%. now that is more than people in this building

in number 11 were expecting. it's more than the former government had budgeted for. it's more than you had budgeted for. would you, as a chancellor who's just said you want to be honest and people have to be prepared for tough decisions, would you be prepared to ignore the recommendations of the independent bodies and risk a period of strikes with the unions by not giving them the pay rises they seek? i really value public service workers in our schools, in our hospitals, in our police, as well. at the moment, we are looking at those pay review body recommendations and doing the analysis, and we will work with public sector workers on that. and later this month, we will make announcements around public sector pay, when we do that full analysis of the public finances and public spending. but we also know that there is a cost to not settling — a cost of further industrial action, a cost in terms of the challenge that we face in recruiting and retaining doctors and nurses

and teachers, as well. but we'll do it in a proper way and make sure that the sums add up. there's a question of principle, though, and when you were asked about this in opposition, you said that the most important thing to you was your commitment to your spending limits, those fiscal rules as they are known. so i'll ask again, in principle, are you willing, as chancellor, to ignore the recommendations for increasing the pay for teachers and other public sector workers... well, we'll set that all out. we will set that all out later this month. but isn't the point... i value the work that public sector workers do, they provide a huge service to our country. but we will set it out in the proper way later this month. people won't have long to wait. we will do that before this month is out. and i can see you don't want to give the detail of what decision you may make, but there is an important question of principle here. ministers are expected, in normal times, to follow the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies.

that's the point of having them. it's meant to take the politics out of it. i totally understand that. and we are in a position where the previous government gave a mandate to the pay review bodies, but they haven't properly factored in the cost of it. that is what this review will be about, looking at the state of the public services, the state of the public finances. but there is also a cost of not settling because the cost of this ongoing industrial action, the cost of failing to be able to recruit and retain the doctors, the nurses and teachers, that also has an impact on our economy. but ijust come back to this point, you know, we are in a situation where there are huge spending pressures and our economy is so weak because it is not generating the tax revenues that we need to fund our public services. it's why we have to grow our economy, because otherwise, we'lljust continue for the next five years having these conversations of how can you afford this? how can you afford that? the only way that we're going to be

able to afford the public services that our country needs and deserves, whilst also being able to keep taxes low, is to have an economy that is generating the wealth and prosperity, which is why we're setting out today the reforms to the pension system. it's why i overturned a previous government decision on planning, more reforms to the planning system in the first 72 hours of this labour government than we had from the last government in ia years. and it's why we've established a national wealth fund, to unlock private sector investment in some of the jobs and industries of the future. we have to grow our economy. that is the only way we're going to get out of the predicament we find ourselves in after ia years of conservative government. and i will ask you more about that in just a second, but on this very important question of this recommendation of 5.5% pay increases for public sector workers, if you went ahead with that, what would the effect on your spending plans be? because that is a huge amount of money that was not planned for — it would blow your numbers, wouldn't it?

well, you know the fiscal rules that we are going to balance day—to—day spending with tax receipts. we'll get debt down as a share of our economy by the end of the forecast period. and then subject to that, invest in the things that we need to grow oui’ economy. those fiscal rules are non—negotiable. we will do a budget in the autumn. i will set the date for that budget and the spending review when i make the statement to parliament later this month. but we will do things in a proper way. every time that we do a budget, we will have a forecast from the independent office for budget responsibility. earlier this week in the king's speech, we announced a bill for budget responsibility, including a fiscal lock. so never again can a prime minister or chancellor do a budget or a mini budget, as they called it, with unfunded commitments around tax and expenditure, because we saw what happened with the conservatives' mini budget — with £16 billion of unfunded commitments. no—one got those tax cuts. what they did get is huge increases in their mortgage rates, which is why fiscal responsibility

and financial stability is the cornerstone of everything that i will do as chancellor of the exchequer. then when it comes to your pension reforms, then you are promising to update the rules in the hope that it will bring lots of investment in, or unlock lots of investment from big piles of cash that are sitting around in the market not being used properly. i've heard politicians promise this kind of change to pensions many times. why do you think you'll actually get it done this time and what do you hope to achieve? so i'm confident that we will be able to make the changes, because in the king's speech earlier this week, we set aside time for a pensions bill. there hasn't been a pensions bill forfour years. that was four chancellors ago. and so subsequent chancellors have said, oh, we're going to do this, we're going to do that. but they never actually did it. i'm about deeds, notjust words. and so we will have that pensions bill and it will do the things that are necessary. and there are two things that are necessary.

first of all, people who make sacrifices and save every month to put something aside for their retirement, they deserve better than the returns they're getting on those savings today. at the moment, when people retire, they find that the security that they hope that retirement would bring, because they saved all their lives, just isn't there. and those pensions aren't delivering for people. there's a second issue as well — that's the one you alluded to. there are £800 billion worth of dc, defined contribution, pension savings, or there will be within the next couple of years. there's also £360 billion in local government pension schemes. that money, frankly, is not working well enough for savers, but it's also not working well enough for our economy. if we could unlockjust i% of the money in defined contribution schemes and invest that in more productive assets — fast—growing british companies — that will be £8 billion to help finance growth and prosperity

and wealth creation here in britain. so this is so important. it's so important to ensure that working people are better off, but it's also so important to our growth mission so that we can create that wealth and prosperity across the whole country. that's why there's an urgency here from this government about unlocking that investment for our economy and delivering for working people who make big sacrifices, but at the moment are being let down by the pensions industry. you mentioned planning and some of the big decisions the government's already made. but ed miliband, your colleague, already appears to be forcing through a giant solar farm in suffolk, which many local residents do not want. the council says it is shocked. are you saying to people today in order to get the economy growing, people are just going to have to suck it up. they're going to have to tolerate things in their local communities that they don't want? we can't carry on like we are. we can't carry on not building energy infrastructure and not building housing, because if we carry on like we are, energy bills are going to continue to go through the roof. we're going to continue

to be reliant on putin and dictators around the world for our basic energy needs. and i'm not willing for our country to be at the mercy of dictators in that way, so we have to build... but that means, by indictation, people in communities sometimes are just going to have to suck it up. they're going to have to put up with... we are going to have to make tough decisions. to make tough decisions, and i'm not going to shy away from that, because a failure to make those decisions — and some of these decisions were sitting on the previous conservative energy minister's desk for months and she wasn't willing to make those difficult decisions — and we are. now, we believe that if you host nationally significant infrastructure, that you should get something in return for that. but we can'tjust keep saying no to investment projects, whether that's housing, data centres, energy infrastructure, transport infrastructure. because if we do, our economy will continue like it has been. and that's not delivering for working people — we've got to turn things around. the reality of that now you're in power means that an mp sitting in an office in westminster can

impose things on communities that don't want it. this new government also wants to nationalise the railways over time. you want to have your own energy company. you want to take these very micro decisions on planning here in westminster. do you think government knows best? well, for housing, for example, we're going to reinstate local housing targets, but then it'll be up to local authorities to decide where to build that housing. but the answer to new projects can't always be no. it's up to them to decide where the housing should go, but they have got to deliver against those targets because home ownership is going backwards, fewer people are being able to get on the housing ladder. rents have gone through the roof. it's just not right. it's just not fair on the next generation. but there's a principle, and ijust wonder if you would acknowledge, maybe you're proud of it, that this new government is significantly expanding the powers of the state. i mean, people might look at some of the things that you want to get involved in and think, well, actually, this group of people, with the intentions that you set out of changing the country, but, actually, you're willing to be quite control freakish.

well, on railways, for example, when those franchises come up, we will bring them back into public ownership, public control. and i think that most people would think that that's a big improvement on the fragmented system that we have today. and so that is a decision that, yes, we will make that decision. it is different from what the conservatives have done these last ia years. but we want a transport system that delivers for people before profit and has a more reliable, more integrated transport system. so, yes, we are going to make different decisions. things aren't going to carry on as they were. we were elected on a mandate to change things, not to carry on as we were because people were sick of the status quo. we're not about the status quo, we're about changing things for the better, but with that focus always on how can we improve lives for ordinary working people. and in terms of those people you mentioned, who you want to put more money in their pocket. you talked during the election campaign — i remember hearing you mention it lots of times about meeting people who genuinely were struggling to pay for the weekly shop,

struggling to put food on the table. yet there is nothing that we can see in the first few weeks of the decisions that you've made that, right now, immediately puts money in the pockets of the least well off in this country. the very poorest are not seeing anything from this labour government that will immediately put money in their pocket. look, i'm not claiming that we're going to be able to turn everything around straightaway, but let me give you two examples of things that were in the king's speech. creating gb energy, a wholly publicly owned energy company to bring people's energy bills down, and also our plans to insulate more homes to reduce people's energy bills. but second, the new deal for working people so that we can turn the minimum wage into a real living wage and ban exploitative zero—hour contracts to give security to working people. those are just two examples around reducing energy bills and ensuring dignity at work and better wages and more security to improve lives of working people. but those are long—term reforms which may or may not improve

lives for working people. you hope that they will. but right now, as you sit here as the brand—new labour chancellor, there is nothing that you are doing that will immediately put money into the pockets of working people. and there is one thing that lots of your colleagues wish you would do which would put money into the pockets of many families who are hard—pressed — by lifting the bars on benefits being paid to families who have more than two children. and it's notjust a few, you know, pockets of backbenchers. there are serious labour figures like andy burnham who want you to do this. gordon brown wants you to do this. you could lift half a million children out of relative poverty straightaway if you made that choice. laura, it costs more than £3 billion a year. and we were really clear during the election that we were not going to make spending commitments without being able to say where the money was going to come from. and if i said to you, now, we're going to make those changes this year or next year or the year after, you would rightly say, where's the money going to come from for that?

if we're not able to say where the money is going to come from, we can't promise to do it. and that's true when it comes to the two—child limit and anything else. but if you ask are we going to lift kids out of poverty? absolutely we are. and look at some of the things that we've committed to do and that we will do. free breakfast clubs at all primary schools so that all children get a good breakfast in the morning and to help their mums and dads be able to take more hours at work or to to get a job. the creation of 3,000 additional nurseries with 100,000 places to help, again, working parents be able to work to provide for theirfamilies. the new dealfor working people to turn the minimum wage into a real living wage, banning exploitative zero—hour contracts. these are all things that would have a material impact on child poverty. previous labour governments have lifted kids out of poverty. it is what is in our dna. we will do that. but i'm not willing to make unfunded commitments because what happens when you make unfunded commitments, whether they're around tax or spending, is the economy crashes and that financial market turbulence

ends up costing the most vulnerable in society even more through higher mortgages and higher rents. and i am going to run our economy with iron discipline, bringing stability back, because we haven't had stability — families haven't had stability for the last few years — and growing our economy so that we've got more money to spend on the people's priorities. but people are ging to have to wait because those are things that will take time. although i know that you say it's urgent and i know that you want to get cracking. do you acknowledge that, actually, since you've been here, the economy is starting to improve? inflation is back to normal. actually, growth has been revised up. well, we've also seen just this week the government borrowing numbers, which are significantly higher than people had anticipated. and that goes to the real true extent of the public finances and the public spending pressures. we also saw labour market data — unemployment up, economic inactivity up. so i really don't buy this idea that somehow we've been handed a golden inheritance. if the former prime minister and chancellor had have thought

things were so good, they would have allowed the election to take place in the autumn. they called an election because they weren't willing to make tough decisions and theyjust ran away. that is deeply irresponsible. it now falls upon this new labour government to tackle the challenges that we face as a country, as an economy. and we are going to do that, but we will do it in an open, a responsible and an honest way. and that is very different from what we've seen these last ia years. i want to ask you about president biden. obviously, this turmoil in your sister party across the atlantic. i know that every politician in government will want to be diplomatic and not want to stick their oar in. but ijust wonder. i know you've paid close attention to what he's done with the american economy. how would you describe president biden's contribution, and do you think he should run in this race? well, those are decisions for the american people. but in the first or second day in thisjob, i had the privilege of speaking to the us finance secretary, janet yellen. somebody who's been a big inspiration to me. i had a chance to meet her

last year in washington and to speak to her this week. and some of the things that they're doing in the us to reindustrialise the former industrial heartlands to bring good jobs back to america, i take inspiration from those things, because i do want to ensure that britain gets its fair share of investment, that we bring jobs in industries from life sciences to green industries like carbon capture and storage. support our financial services sector that employs more than a million people. i want good jobs, more economic growth, more prosperity here in britain, the us has outperformed us in terms of growth and prosperity these last few years under the leadership of biden and janet yellen. and i think there is a lot that we can learn as we try and grow our economy here in britain. what do you think it's going to be like living above the shop? you're literally moving in this weekend, i think. yes, so i had my my first

night's sleep in the flat here in downing street this weekend. and my family will be moving in with me. it's a big change for our family. i've got two young children, but i'm excited about the opportunity to do this job. the first two weeks, i sort of moved into the treasury and this weekend moving into the flat. but there's a lot to do, and we've onlyjust begun. and there's a tradition of chancellors having often their predecessors hanging on a portrait, looking down on them above the desk. have you decided who you're going to put on your wall? well, the picture of nigel lawson has come down and a new picture will go up. and you know that i've been hugely inspired by many women in politics and in economics. women like ellen wilkinson, jennie lee, alice bacon in politics and, in economics, women likejoan robinson or mary paley marshall. so i haven't made a decision, but a picture will be going up on that wall. and it will be a woman? it will be a woman.

rachel reeves, chancellor, thanks very much indeed for speaking to us today. thank you. ina in a couple of minutes we will talk tojeremy hunt who moved out of the office a couple of weeks ago. let's see what the panel made of it. zarah you want her to lift the bar on families with more than two children claiming extra benefits and she is not budging. how difficult are you on the left prepared to make life difficult for the leadership? it the difficult for the leadership? if the labour party _ difficult for the leadership? if the labour party has _ difficult for the leadership? if the labour party has a _ difficult for the leadership? if the labour party has a moral - difficult for the leadership? if ii�*uéi labour party has a moral mission it has to be to eradicate child poverty. families experience unnecessary hardship. she mentioned tough decisions. we can fund it if we look at different tax decisions where the wealthiest with broadest shoulders pay for this. the sixth largest economy in the world to get the most unequal in the developed world. we can fund the commitment if we want to, it is a matter of political will. we can uplift

300,000 children instantly from poverty if we do this. she 300,000 children instantly from poverty if we do this.— poverty if we do this. she is not reared poverty if we do this. she is not prepared to _ poverty if we do this. she is not prepared to put _ poverty if we do this. she is not prepared to put up _ poverty if we do this. she is not prepared to put up taxes - poverty if we do this. she is not prepared to put up taxes for - poverty if we do this. she is not| prepared to put up taxes for this idea. foryou on prepared to put up taxes for this idea. for you on the left, how hard will you push? will you be able to do when they have a big majority? the policy is that of labour party affiliated unions and the tuc that speaks up for 6 million workers. this is not a radical demand. if rachel decided to put a 2% wealth tax on assets over 10 billion you could raise 2a billion. if you equalise capital gains thresholds. they say there is not money to fund this, we are not looking on the right places. this, we are not looking on the right places-— this, we are not looking on the right places. this, we are not looking on the riaht laces. ., ., ., , right places. you are not giving up on this. when _ right places. you are not giving up on this. when you _ right places. you are not giving up on this. when you heard _ right places. you are not giving up on this. when you heard her - right places. you are not giving up on this. when you heard her hint l right places. you are not giving up i on this. when you heard her hint she will give public sector workers some form of pay rise above inflation, not the 5.5% suggested, but where is she going to be able to get money

from? i she going to be able to get money from? ., ., ., ., _, . she going to be able to get money from? ., ., ., ., . ,., from? i do not want to correct you, laura. from? i do not want to correct you, laura- she — from? i do not want to correct you, laura- she did _ from? i do not want to correct you, laura. she did not— from? i do not want to correct you, laura. she did not say _ from? i do not want to correct you, laura. she did not say she - from? i do not want to correct you, laura. she did not say she wasn't l laura. she did not say she wasn't going _ laura. she did not say she wasn't going do— laura. she did not say she wasn't going do it. — laura. she did not say she wasn't going do it, she said she would not do it without saying where the money comes— do it without saying where the money comes from _ do it without saying where the money comes from so that leaves room for finding _ comes from so that leaves room for finding money. it is a symbolic question— finding money. it is a symbolic question of whether that is the thing _ question of whether that is the thing she — question of whether that is the thing she wants to find money for. you can— thing she wants to find money for. you can find... there is a few billion— you can find... there is a few billion to _ you can find... there is a few billion to be _ you can find... there is a few billion to be found at least but you cannot _ billion to be found at least but you cannot spend it five times. there are many— cannot spend it five times. there are many things she is asking to spend _ are many things she is asking to spend on— are many things she is asking to spend on including pain. i think there _ spend on including pain. i think there will— spend on including pain. i think there will be things where they find there will be things where they find the money. there is leeway in some of the _ the money. there is leeway in some of the debt— the money. there is leeway in some of the debt targets and borrowing target _ of the debt targets and borrowing target it— of the debt targets and borrowing target. it was interesting to hear her. target. it was interesting to hear her~ you — target. it was interesting to hear her. you hear this from all of the new ministers, secretaries of state, you have _ new ministers, secretaries of state, you have the — new ministers, secretaries of state, you have the thrill of being able to take decisions everyday, i can do this _ take decisions everyday, i can do this and — take decisions everyday, i can do this. and the mystification of why they did _ this. and the mystification of why they did not do this and that is nice _ they did not do this and that is nice to — they did not do this and that is nice to play for the political

theatre _ nice to play for the political theatre but when it comes to public sector— theatre but when it comes to public sector pay, — theatre but when it comes to public sector pay, and the crucial things of house — sector pay, and the crucial things of house building, planning, all of that stuff— of house building, planning, all of that stuff will require a continued devotion— that stuff will require a continued devotion to detail and micro—action. there _ devotion to detail and micro—action. there will— devotion to detail and micro—action. there will be legal challenges against — there will be legal challenges against some of the solar farms. it is that— against some of the solar farms. it is that question of whether they will continue to have energy to fight _ will continue to have energy to fight this— will continue to have energy to fight this on the ground because if they don't— fight this on the ground because if they don't achieve the micro—things, they don't achieve the micro—things, the macro— they don't achieve the micro—things, the macro picture will stay. i'm interested you said money is to be found, where from?— be found, where from? there are small tax rises _ be found, where from? there are small tax rises you _ be found, where from? there are small tax rises you can _ be found, where from? there are small tax rises you can do, - be found, where from? there are small tax rises you can do, you . be found, where from? there are i small tax rises you can do, you can also make — small tax rises you can do, you can also make small changes to some of the debt— also make small changes to some of the debt targets. i personally also think— the debt targets. i personally also think that — the debt targets. i personally also think that we will see growth revised — think that we will see growth revised up a bit over the next year or two— revised up a bit over the next year or two because it looks like there will he _ or two because it looks like there will be higher forecasts for investment. we will see, because i think— investment. we will see, because i think the _ investment. we will see, because i think the office for budget responsibility will make this decision. there will be a few billion— decision. there will be a few billion but not all of the things...

chancellors — billion but not all of the things... chancellors moving their numbers around a bit to make life easier for them in order of politics. jon, you said you feel sense and sensibility has returned, what stood out to you? it is fascinating seeing these first interviews, — it is fascinating seeing these first interviews, the _ it is fascinating seeing these first interviews, the early— it is fascinating seeing these first interviews, the early ones - it is fascinating seeing these first interviews, the early ones in - it is fascinating seeing these first interviews, the early ones in the i interviews, the early ones in the heart _ interviews, the early ones in the heart of— interviews, the early ones in the heart of the _ interviews, the early ones in the heart of the honeymoon - interviews, the early ones in the heart of the honeymoon period, | interviews, the early ones in the - heart of the honeymoon period, where there is— heart of the honeymoon period, where there is a _ heart of the honeymoon period, where there is a great— heart of the honeymoon period, where there is a great focus _ heart of the honeymoon period, where there is a great focus on _ heart of the honeymoon period, where there is a great focus on what - heart of the honeymoon period, where there is a great focus on what we've i there is a great focus on what we've been _ there is a great focus on what we've been given— there is a great focus on what we've been given to — there is a great focus on what we've been given to work _ there is a great focus on what we've been given to work with, _ there is a great focus on what we've been given to work with, what - there is a great focus on what we've| been given to work with, what we've inherited, _ been given to work with, what we've inherited, do— been given to work with, what we've inherited, do we _ been given to work with, what we've inherited, do we realise _ been given to work with, what we've inherited, do we realise how- been given to work with, what we've inherited, do we realise how bad - inherited, do we realise how bad this is? — inherited, do we realise how bad this is? a — inherited, do we realise how bad this is? a few— inherited, do we realise how bad this is? a few short _ inherited, do we realise how bad this is? a few short weeks - inherited, do we realise how badl this is? a few short weeks before relying _ this is? a few short weeks before relying on— this is? a few short weeks before relying on that _ this is? a few short weeks before relying on that evaporates - this is? a few short weeks before relying on that evaporates and i this is? a few short weeks before . relying on that evaporates and then it is about _ relying on that evaporates and then it is about what _ relying on that evaporates and then it is about what are _ relying on that evaporates and then it is about what are you _ relying on that evaporates and then it is about what are you going i relying on that evaporates and then it is about what are you going to i it is about what are you going to do? the — it is about what are you going to do? the details _ it is about what are you going to do? the details in _ it is about what are you going to do? the details in that- it is about what are you going to do? the details in that sense i it is about what are you going to do? the details in that sense at| it is about what are you going to i do? the details in that sense at the moment— do? the details in that sense at the moment seem _ do? the details in that sense at the moment seem a _ do? the details in that sense at the moment seem a little broad. but i do? the details in that sense at the | moment seem a little broad. but let us see _ moment seem a little broad. but let us see how— moment seem a little broad. but let us see how they— moment seem a little broad. but let us see how they fine _ moment seem a little broad. but let us see how they fine tune _ moment seem a little broad. but let us see how they fine tune it. - moment seem a little broad. but let us see how they fine tune it. [n- us see how they fine tune it. in terms us see how they fine tune it. terms of them, as a member us see how they fine tune it.“ terms of them, as a member of the public, the tactic we have seen from labour ministers across the board saying it is worse than we knew, even worse, do you see that is them trying to spin you or take it as a genuine discovery that is now being communicated? thea;r genuine discovery that is now being communicated?— genuine discovery that is now being communicated? , , ,, ., , communicated? they must know, they must surely know. _ communicated? they must know, they must surely know. the _ communicated? they must know, they must surely know. the question i communicated? they must know, they must surely know. the question is, i must surely know. the question is, in the _ must surely know. the question is, in the early— must surely know. the question is, in the early stages, _

must surely know. the question is, in the early stages, it's _ must surely know. the question is, in the early stages, it's how - must surely know. the question is, in the early stages, it's how do i must surely know. the question is, in the early stages, it's how do we i in the early stages, it's how do we explain _ in the early stages, it's how do we explain this, — in the early stages, it's how do we explain this, how _ in the early stages, it's how do we explain this, how do _ in the early stages, it's how do we explain this, how do we _ in the early stages, it's how do we explain this, how do we manage . in the early stages, it's how do we i explain this, how do we manage this? little information _ explain this, how do we manage this? little information is _ explain this, how do we manage this? little information is given— explain this, how do we manage this? little information is given away. i little information is given away. when _ little information is given away. when you — little information is given away. when you hear. _ little information is given away. when you hear, we _ little information is given away. when you hear, we will- little information is given away. when you hear, we will set i little information is given away. when you hear, we will set this| little information is given away. i when you hear, we will set this out, we are _ when you hear, we will set this out, we are going — when you hear, we will set this out, we are going to— when you hear, we will set this out, we are going to set— when you hear, we will set this out, we are going to set this _ when you hear, we will set this out, we are going to set this out, - when you hear, we will set this out, we are going to set this out, i - we are going to set this out, i think— we are going to set this out, i think the _ we are going to set this out, i think the translation - we are going to set this out, i think the translation of - we are going to set this out, i think the translation of that l we are going to set this out, i l think the translation of that is, we are going to set this out, i i think the translation of that is, we don't _ think the translation of that is, we don't know— think the translation of that is, we don't know yet. _ think the translation of that is, we don't know yet, hang _ think the translation of that is, we don't know yet, hang on, - think the translation of that is, we don't know yet, hang on, give i think the translation of that is, we don't know yet, hang on, give us. think the translation of that is, we| don't know yet, hang on, give us a few weeks — don't know yet, hang on, give us a few weeks eze— don't know yet, hang on, give us a few weeks-— few weeks. by the end of this a month, few weeks. by the end of this a month. we _ few weeks. by the end of this a month, we expect _ few weeks. by the end of this a month, we expect her - few weeks. by the end of this a month, we expect her to i few weeks. by the end of this a month, we expect her to come| few weeks. by the end of this a i month, we expect her to come back to parliament with a warts and all analysis of the public finances. the politics of how this works, zarah, you are clearly with your colleagues determined to campaign on issues close to your heart but do you think the leadership with such a big majority is going to have to listen to you? majority is going to have to listen to ou? ~ ., ., ~ , to you? well, we are all mps with constituencies. _ to you? well, we are all mps with constituencies. we _ to you? well, we are all mps with constituencies. we have - to you? well, we are all mps with constituencies. we have been i constituencies. we have been knocking on doors for six weeks before the general election. this is an issue that comes up time and time again. the cost of living, how people are struggling. we have seen wages plot line and yet the wealth of the very richest in this country has skyrocketed. billionaires in the uk have seen their wealth go up threefold under the tories, just shy of 700 billion in total. so there is money in the economy. some people

have done really well under the tories' austerity programme and it is not ordinary working people. stephanie, can you explain what the government is trying to do on pensions? if you are at home watching and here pensions reform, is a good or bad thing if you are an ordinary saver?— is a good or bad thing if you are an ordinary saver? they've talked a lot about trying — ordinary saver? they've talked a lot about trying to _ ordinary saver? they've talked a lot about trying to get _ ordinary saver? they've talked a lot about trying to get the _ ordinary saver? they've talked a lot about trying to get the pool- ordinary saver? they've talked a lot about trying to get the pool of i about trying to get the pool of savings — about trying to get the pool of savings that people make more available — savings that people make more available for these big infrastructure projects and other things — infrastructure projects and other things i— infrastructure projects and other things. i think her predecessor also tried that — things. i think her predecessor also tried that i— things. i think her predecessor also tried that. i think she will be continuing some of the reforms that jeremy— continuing some of the reforms that jeremy hunt did but it is a continuing challenge. if you have been _ continuing challenge. if you have been investing in the uk recently, you haven't — been investing in the uk recently, you haven't done very well compared to investing — you haven't done very well compared to investing in the us. telling pensioners or telling big pension funds, _ pensioners or telling big pension funds, you can't invest pensioners money— funds, you can't invest pensioners money in — funds, you can't invest pensioners money in countries that are doing best, _ money in countries that are doing best. you — money in countries that are doing best, you have to invest in the uk, ithink— best, you have to invest in the uk, i think that — best, you have to invest in the uk, i think that is — best, you have to invest in the uk, i think that is a challenging ask. 0k, i think that is a challenging ask. ok, interesting. thank you all three you. with labour moving in, the tories had to pack their bags. the whole hunt family, with the very well—behaved poppy the dog...

sadly you cannot see her in the shot, walked out of number 11 for the final time. but shot, walked out of number 11 for the finaltime. butjeremy shot, walked out of number 11 for the final time. butjeremy hunt has returned to the studio even though he is no longer in office. great to have you here for your first interview since the general election. interview since the general election-— interview since the general. election._ good election. good morning. good morning- _ election. good morning. good morning. rachel— election. good morning. good morning. rachel reeves i election. good morning. good morning. rachel reeves says | election. good morning. good i morning. rachel reeves says she is angry with what you left behind and said the public finances are dire and you fudged tough decisions and ran away, she has a point, doesn't she? . ran away, she has a point, doesn't she? , ., ., , she? first of all, i wish rachel reeves well. _ she? first of all, i wish rachel reeves well. on _ she? first of all, i wish rachel reeves well. on a _ she? first of all, i wish rachel reeves well. on a personal i she? first of all, i wish rachel. reeves well. on a personal level, she? first of all, i wish rachel- reeves well. on a personal level, i think she has qualities that can make her a good chancellor. there are things she said that i welcome. i welcome what she wants to do on pensions, which you were just talking about with stephanie. i welcome what she wants to do on planning reform. but what is absolute nonsense is this business of the worst economic inheritance since the second world war. you only need to look at the last time a government changed hands between parties in 2010, compared to then, inflation is nearly half what it

was. we had markets collapsing, now we have the fastest growth in the g7. we have unemployment nearly half what it was then. it is a very transformed picture and i think the reason that she is doing this is that she wants to lay the ground for tax rises. perfectly legitimate for a new government to come in and say they want to spend more and tax more. every labour government in history has done that but she should have been honest about that before the election, rather than trying to spring it on us after the election. you are trying to suggest what she might do and we don't have a crystal ball. to pick you up on that, government debt is a high since 1962, almost at the same size as the whole of the economy. the unemployment rate recently has started ticking up again. the economic inactivity has started ticking up again so people not in work who could be. and all of our viewers this morning, jeremy hunt, know that in the last few years, anne successive conservative

economies, the economy has been bumbling along the bottom and people have felt hard up. so you will not sit here this morning and say what you left behind was all peaches and cream? ., . . you left behind was all peaches and cream? ., ., ., . cream? not at all. we faced in the last 14 years _ cream? not at all. we faced in the last 14 years three _ cream? not at all. we faced in the last 14 years three massive i cream? not at all. we faced in the last 14 years three massive global| last 1a years three massive global shocks, the pandemic, the energy shock, clearing up after the financial crisis and despite those pressures, we grew faster than france, germany, italy, japan and many other similar countries. emir; many other similar countries. only in some of— many other similar countries. only in some of the _ many other similar countries. only in some of the recent _ many other similar countries. only in some of the recent figures. everyone watching this morning, everybody knows and stephanie was telling us at the beginning that under conservatives for 1a years, the economy has had some very fundamental problems and bumped along the bottom and there are lots of problems that you didn't fix. i of problems that you didn't fix. i am sorry, laura, but i need to correct you there. without wanting to re—litigate all the debates from the election but since 2010, when we had all those shocks, all those things we had to cope with, we have grown faster than france or germany or italy orjapan and many other

similar countries. when you talk about public finances, which we spend a lot of time talking about, as he did with rachel reeves, all chancellors have to manage pressures on public finances, that is part of thejob. but when on public finances, that is part of the job. but when conservatives came to office in 2010, we had a deficit of nearly 12% of gdp. it is nowjust over a% and indeed it is predicted to turn into a surplus in just four years. so i don't pretend it is easy, it was never easy being chancellor, particularly not after a pandemic and energy shock but the reason we are getting all they spin about this terrible economic inheritance is because labour wants to raise taxes. you inheritance is because labour wants to raise taxes.— to raise taxes. you think it is sin? to raise taxes. you think it is spin? yes. — to raise taxes. you think it is spin? yes. it— to raise taxes. you think it is spin? yes, it is. _ to raise taxes. you think it is spin? yes, it is. if— to raise taxes. you think it is spin? yes, it is. if they i to raise taxes. you think it is l spin? yes, it is. if they wanted to raise taxes. you think it is i spin? yes, it is. if they wanted to raise taxes. _ spin? yes, it is. if they wanted to raise taxes, all— spin? yes, it is. if they wanted to raise taxes, all the _ spin? yes, it is. if they wanted to raise taxes, all the numbers i spin? yes, it is. if they wanted toj raise taxes, all the numbers were crystal clear before the election. they had the office for budget responsibility telling them those numbers. they should have levelled with the british public and said that like every other labour government, we want to increase spending and increase tax to pay for

it. ., ., . . , ., it. you are criticising them for caettin it. you are criticising them for getting something _ it. you are criticising them for getting something they i it. you are criticising them for getting something they would j it. you are criticising them for i getting something they would do but rachel reeves claimed he went to the country early because you knew the problems are coming down the track and you didn't want to deal with them. the teachers' pay review were sitting on the education secretary's desk for a few months, we know that. what was going on in prisons, we know theirformer what was going on in prisons, we know their former prisons minister was begging the prime minister to do something more radical about it and he didn't do it, he refused. you haven't paid out for the affected blood scandal, which will be a huge bill. isn't there a case that you were actually quite happy to let things sit and rot because you knew that you would leave it for somebody else to clean up?— else to clean up? laura, you have interviewed _ else to clean up? laura, you have interviewed me _ else to clean up? laura, you have interviewed me on _ else to clean up? laura, you have interviewed me on many - else to clean up? laura, you have| interviewed me on many occasions over the years and you have criticised me for many things but not taking tough and difficult decisions is one thing i don't think people would level at me. this decisions is one thing i don't think people would level at me.- people would level at me. this is about leaving _ people would level at me. this is about leaving things _ people would level at me. this is about leaving things behind. i i people would level at me. this is| about leaving things behind. i am ve ha- about leaving things behind. i am very happy to _ about leaving things behind. i am very happy to tell—

about leaving things behind. i am very happy to tell you _ about leaving things behind. i —n very happy to tell you what we inherited and what we left behind and i havejust said inherited and what we left behind and i have just said that compared to the inheritance that we had in 2010, this is a transformed picture, albeit with many challenges. but when i became chancellor, i had to put up taxes by £20 billion. i had to cut spending plans by £30 billion. the story of the last 18 months is of a government that has taken very difficult decisions. you had to do that _ taken very difficult decisions. you had to do that because of the misadventures of a conservative prime minister who was only in charge forjust over a0 days and created absolute mayhem. lloafere charge forjust over 40 days and created absolute mayhem. were you ever... created absolute mayhem. were you ever- -- we — created absolute mayhem. were you ever- -- we can _ created absolute mayhem. were you ever... we can go _ created absolute mayhem. were you ever... we can go back _ created absolute mayhem. were you ever... we can go back to _ created absolute mayhem. were you ever... we can go back to the i ever... we can go back to the discussions about the mini—budget, we reversed those mistakes and they were mistakes, very quickly. the reason we had to make those difficult decisions on tax and spending is because we spent £a00 billion supporting families and businesses in the pandemic and we were right to do that and labour and everyone supported us when we did that. but of course, you have to pay for that. ~ , ., ., ., , for that. were you ever going to be able to cut — for that. were you ever going to be able to cut taxes _ for that. were you ever going to be able to cut taxes in _ for that. were you ever going to be able to cut taxes in the _ for that. were you ever going to be able to cut taxes in the autumn? i was looking until a couple of weeks ago at the same numbers that rachel reeves is now looking at. it is very

clear that if you are prepared to show restraint on public sector pay, as we did last year, if you are prepared to be ambitious on public sector productivity, as i was in the budget, and you are prepared to do welfare reform, which was glaringly absent from the king's speech, if you do those three things, it's perfectly possible to balance the books in a way that means that taxes don't have to rise. i think it is very clear from what we have seen in the first two weeks of this labour government that they are not prepared to take those difficult decisions. ., ., �* ., decisions. hang on, i'm asking you a decisions. hang on, i'm asking you a decision about _ decisions. hang on, i'm asking you a decision about what _ decisions. hang on, i'm asking you a decision about what you _ decisions. hang on, i'm asking you a decision about what you were i decision about what you were planning to do because during the election campaign, our viewers heard you and your colleagues sitting in that chair every week saying you would cut taxes and there have been reports this week that now in the shadow cabinet, you told colleagues that actually the treasury had said you wouldn't be able to do tax cuts in the autumn. is that true or do you deny that you said that? well, we said, you deny that you said that? well, we said. and _ you deny that you said that? well, we said. and l _ you deny that you said that? well, we said, and i still— you deny that you said that? well, we said, and i still believe - you deny that you said that? well, we said, and i still believe very i we said, and i still believe very strongly that if we are going to

grow as an economy, we can't do what labour is now doing, which is ignore the evidence from around the world that countries with lower taxes... i that countries with lower taxes... i want you to directly answer this question. i want you to directly answer this ruestion. . want you to directly answer this ruestion. , ., ., , , want you to directly answer this ruestion. , ., ._ , question. i weld, but we always said we would cut — question. i weld, but we always said we would cut taxes _ question. i weld, but we always said we would cut taxes in _ question. i weld, but we always said we would cut taxes in a _ question. i weld, but we always said we would cut taxes in a responsible | we would cut taxes in a responsible way. i never said we would cut them as soon as they sought a man that would depend on the public finances and so we were very clear. but yes, we did have plans place. thea;r and so we were very clear. but yes, we did have plans place. they would have allowed — we did have plans place. they would have allowed us _ we did have plans place. they would have allowed us to _ we did have plans place. they would have allowed us to reduce _ we did have plans place. they would have allowed us to reduce the i we did have plans place. they would have allowed us to reduce the tax i have allowed us to reduce the tax burden. your campaign was on a campaign promise of cutting taxes, did the treasury so you wouldn't be able to do it this autumn? l did the treasury so you wouldn't be able to do it this autumn?— able to do it this autumn? i don't think we would _ able to do it this autumn? i don't think we would have _ able to do it this autumn? i don't think we would have been - able to do it this autumn? i don't think we would have been able i able to do it this autumn? i don't} think we would have been able to able to do it this autumn? i don't i think we would have been able to do it immediately, no, but in time and we had plans in place to do that. why do you think you got hammered in the election even though you kept your seat? the election even though you kept our seat? ~ ~ ., ., your seat? well, i think we have to be honest. — your seat? well, i think we have to be honest, humble _ your seat? well, i think we have to be honest, humble and _ your seat? well, i think we have to be honest, humble and reflective l be honest, humble and reflective that after iii years of massive economic challenges, we got some

things right, particularly putting the economy back on its feet, areas like standards in schools. but at the end of that period, we decisively lost the trust of the british people and i think there were three main reasons why we did that. i think the first is that the upheavals of 2022, which you talked about, notjust the mini—budget but partygate and other things, and we lost our reputation for calm competence, which is one of the main reasons people vote for conservatives. we also didn't bring immigration down by anything like as much as we wanted to. and also i had to put taxes up to pay for the pandemic and i don't think we succeeded in convincing people that we had a plan to bring them back down again. we now need to be very honest about those failures because this country needs a strong opposition. i think you can see already from labour's first two

weeks, if ijust give you one example, they scrapped the rwanda plan and we've already had 1500 people arriving on small boats. figs people arriving on small boats. as they also were when the rwanda plan existed. interesting that you said there, i want to talked about what happened in the party, you gave three reasons, the chaos under boris johnson and liz truss, partygate and a failure to tackle immigration and failure to acknowledge what you put taxes up so much and persuade people you are going to bring them down. isn't there also the way in which the party handled all of this? i think that many of our viewers, and we see this from our inbox every week, became fed up of you squabbling in public, concentrating on yourselves rather than country and i know you are trying calmly to explain it this morning but the recent history of the tory party is a litany of disaster. it's not that you just had three things that went wrong. you just had three things that went wronu. ~ ~' you just had three things that went wronu. ~ ~ ., , wrong. well, i think there were lots of thins wrong. well, i think there were lots of things you _ wrong. well, i think there were lots of things you could _ wrong. well, i think there were lots of things you could point _ wrong. well, i think there were lots of things you could point to, - wrong. well, i think there were lots of things you could point to, i - of things you could point to, i think those are the three substantive things that we got wrong. yes, the british people want

to elect united parties and we did not show that united front that people want to see, i fully accept that. but i think it's also important to say when you look back at the last 1a years, over [i important to say when you look back at the last 1a years, over 11 million jobs were created. that is 800 jobs but every single day that we were in office. you are talking to rachel reeves about investment. we got more foreign greenfield investment than anywhere in the world apart from the united states and china over those 14 united states and china over those 1a years. and we had an economy that grew faster than many of our peers. but in terms of what happens next for your party, how do you fix it and who should fix it? the field of potential runners is sort of as big as the grand national but —— yehudi thing has the answers? i will not put my hat in the ring for the leadership election and i do not want to comment on who that might be but the first thing is we have to be honest about why we lost

the trust of the electorate. we cannot duck that difficult conversation. we need to earn it back by being absolutely clear we have solutions and we will hold the government to account, taking account of the things we got wrong. you mention immigration as a problem and robertjenrick who is likely to run said it was a key failure of the party and he thinks there should be a cap on immigration of 100,000, but others in the party say that moving to the right is the wrong tack to take. in terms of direction, where do you think the party is more likely to win the country back, by trying to appeal to reform voters or cleaving to the centre which other colleagues think was a mistake? in a colleagues think was a mistake? in a two -a colleagues think was a mistake? in — two party system as we have, elections are run from the centre ground —— won from the centre ground but the question is what is the

centre ground? i think ordinary, decent british families want controls on migration and want the government to show restraint on spending and keep taxes down, they want welfare to be reformed so it's fair to people who work hard. i think that is the centre ground where the conservatives should be. we need to carve out a position that does that but reflects honestly on the fact we did not get everything right and we need to be open about why we did not get everything right and that is the way we give people confidence we will be able to do things differently. fist confidence we will be able to do things differently.— confidence we will be able to do things differently. at the moment the -a things differently. at the moment the party cannot _ things differently. at the moment the party cannot agree _ things differently. at the moment the party cannot agree on - things differently. at the moment the party cannot agree on how- things differently. at the moment | the party cannot agree on how the leadership race should be run. should the leader be in place by october? i understand arguments in both directions on that. this time next year, the only thing that will matter is not whether we had a leader in place by october or december but whether we have the right leader in place, someone who

can earn back trust we lost. i think if we need to we should take our time. ., ., , , ., ,, time. you did many big 'obs in government. * health secretary was one and in time you were responsible for preparing for the pandemics. the covid inquiry report said preparation and some of the delivery, and lives were lost unnecessarily. would you this morning like to apologise for what went wrong?— morning like to apologise for what went wrong? morning like to apologise for what went wronu? ~ , ., ., went wrong? absolutely. i was one of the many ministers, _ went wrong? absolutely. i was one of the many ministers, many _ went wrong? absolutely. i was one of the many ministers, many officials, i the many ministers, many officials, scientists, part of a groupthink where we over prepared for pandemic flu. we did not think of other pandemics. we should have challenged that groupthink. i apologise to the families of this most terrible tragedy of what happened during covid. the report has sensible recommendations including

simplifying the structure for these emergencies and i hope the government adoption. jeremy thank ou. now, as you know every now and then, we like to bring you something just unashamedly beautiful. today, it's the music of the superstar violinist nicola benedetti. she is also the boss of the edinburgh international festival and she stopped by last week. so it's a festival of long tradition — started in 19117. it was actually the original festival in edinburgh, the one that started it all, and hosts all sorts of different arts. so it's very diverse and eclectic with music, dance, drama, theatre and all styles of music, as well. so, for me, obviously, thejob is a huge honour, but a massive responsibility for the cultural landscape of scotland. but that is so tied to the nature of education in the country. so that advocacy really does broaden.

because, for some people, classical music can be a bit intimidating. or even if you think of the sort of prices of going to a big concert or even going to the opera or something. so is part of what you're trying to dojust make it easier and more welcoming for everybody? well, we're looking at very practical obstacles, like ticket prices. so 50% of our tickets are £30 and under. and for every single performance, you can get a ticket for £10. but, at the same time, there is a wider question there around what would stop people coming to a certain type of performance. and i again think that that is, you know, young introduction to being exposed to all sorts of styles of art, and something that is open to you — doesn't feel like a foreign land. and you were a superstar as a teenager. but how do you think in the 20205, you know, when public money is very tight, we know that fewer kids are learning to play classical music, do you think that government and even taxpayers have a role

in trying to make this something that's available for anyone who's interested? i have always advocated that music and the expressive arts and creativity are part of a first—class education for everyone — should be. i think the question we have to ask is do we value that as a civic pillar? do we value that as a part of a civilisation that we want to see, notjust be maintained and sustained, but really prosper and grow? obviously, with the political landscape at the moment, a moment of real change and so many new characters that we as artists and cultural advocates can communicate with and speak to directly. i'm excited to see that be more sort of included in the fold of what is vital for education. have you got, then, a message to this new government?

i always do, yes. we are at a time where problems need to be solved and they can't be solved through just protecting what's there, because thatjust results in stagnation. we need the ultimate creativity in our young people to imagine their way out of where we are and into something new. and in order to do that, you have to speak to the invisible parts of who we are. so our thoughts and our feelings and our style of communication and creativity. does that mean, in brass tacks, more money for kids' education in schools? absolutely. sorry, i couldn't even let you finish your sentence. absolutely. for music education, for that wider creative education. but also how that falls into the arts organisations that are putting on the performances, that are keeping the concert halls open, that are making tickets affordable for anyone and everyone to be able to attend. so you've got a huge job at the festival, a huge job with your incredible career as a musician. but you've got something else on your plate now. it's the first time that you've come

out to do an interview and perform since you've had your baby. so congratulations. thank you very much. how has it been? are you going to go on the road with the little one? oh, i definitely will be, yes. i mean, it's quite nice to be out in the real world, at the moment. but, no, it's been a wonderful experience, so far, and an adjustment to life, of course, but a very blessed and happy one. what are you going to play for us, and what does it mean to you as a piece of music? so the first outing of my playing since the birth, i'll play ashokan farewell by jay ungar, which is an american tune, actually, but really pays homage to the the scottish mythology and the scottish sound. so it's a personalised arrangement of that tune. we look forward to hearing it. and it's been a real privilege to have you here with us on a sunday morning. thank you so much for having me. we will hear from nicola we will hearfrom nicola in we will hear from nicola in a we will hearfrom nicola in a couple of minutes. jon, we know there is a

treat hearing your interpretations about politicians and high—profile people. i must ask what you have been working on as the political landscape has changed. does it mean a new turn? it landscape has changed. does it mean a new turn?— a new turn? it changes over, regenerates- — a new turn? it changes over, regenerates. interesting - a new turn? it changes over, regenerates. interesting to l a new turn? it changes over, i regenerates. interesting to see a new turn? it changes over, - regenerates. interesting to see the difference — regenerates. interesting to see the difference in — regenerates. interesting to see the difference in keir— regenerates. interesting to see the difference in keir starmer- regenerates. interesting to see the difference in keir starmer now- regenerates. interesting to see the difference in keir starmer now he l regenerates. interesting to see the| difference in keir starmer now he is prime _ difference in keir starmer now he is prime minister. _ difference in keir starmer now he is prime minister. as— difference in keir starmer now he is prime minister. as leader- difference in keir starmer now he is prime minister. as leader of- difference in keir starmer now he is prime minister. as leader of the i prime minister. as leader of the opposition— prime minister. as leader of the opposition he _ prime minister. as leader of the opposition he was _ prime minister. as leader of the opposition he was overcautiousj prime minister. as leader of the - opposition he was overcautious. now it has_ opposition he was overcautious. now it has translated _ opposition he was overcautious. now it has translated into _ opposition he was overcautious. now it has translated into steadiness. - it has translated into steadiness. 0k, it has translated into steadiness. ok. i'm — it has translated into steadiness. ok. i'm going— it has translated into steadiness. ok. i'm going to— it has translated into steadiness. ok, i'm going to stand _ it has translated into steadiness. ok, i'm going to stand by- it has translated into steadiness. ok, i'm going to stand by somel it has translated into steadiness. - ok, i'm going to stand by some world leaders _ ok, i'm going to stand by some world leaders and _ ok, i'm going to stand by some world leaders and look _ ok, i'm going to stand by some world leaders and look credible _ ok, i'm going to stand by some world leaders and look credible because - leaders and look credible because that is— leaders and look credible because that is what— leaders and look credible because that is what i_ leaders and look credible because that is what i do. _ leaders and look credible because that is what i do. interesting - leaders and look credible because that is what i do. interesting to i that is what i do. interesting to see the — that is what i do. interesting to see the changes _ that is what i do. interesting to see the changes after - that is what i do. interesting to see the changes after the - that is what i do. interesting to see the changes after the johnl that is what i do. interesting to - see the changes after the john major years _ see the changes after the john major years. tony— see the changes after the john major years. tony blair— see the changes after the john major years. tony blair was, _ see the changes after the john major years. tony blair was, let's - see the changes after the john major years. tony blair was, let's liven - years. tony blair was, let's liven things— years. tony blair was, let's liven things un — years. tony blair was, let's liven things un and _ years. tony blair was, let's liven things up. and then _ years. tony blair was, let's liven things up. and then keir- years. tony blair was, let's liven| things up. and then keir starmer coming _ things up. and then keir starmer coming in — things up. and then keir starmer cominu in. . things up. and then keir starmer coming in— coming in. settle down, class. peole coming in. settle down, class. peeple saying _ coming in. settle down, class. people saying he _ coming in. settle down, class. people saying he is _ coming in. settle down, class. people saying he is like - coming in. settle down, class. people saying he is like a - people saying he is like a headmaster and they are the school prefix and he is checking their homework. how do you do the keir starmer impression if you had to think about changing it? instantly,

an ime think about changing it? instantly, anytime someone _ think about changing it? instantly, anytime someone becomes - think about changing it? instantly, anytime someone becomes the i think about changing it? instantly, i anytime someone becomes the prime minister— anytime someone becomes the prime minister they— anytime someone becomes the prime minister they move _ anytime someone becomes the prime minister they move up _ anytime someone becomes the prime minister they move up the _ anytime someone becomes the prime minister they move up the charts - anytime someone becomes the prime minister they move up the charts of. minister they move up the charts of the act _ minister they move up the charts of the act they— minister they move up the charts of the act. they have _ minister they move up the charts of the act. they have got _ minister they move up the charts of the act. they have got to _ minister they move up the charts of the act. they have got to be there. | the act. they have got to be there. it is how— the act. they have got to be there. it is how they— the act. they have got to be there. it is how they interact _ the act. they have got to be there. it is how they interact with - the act. they have got to be there. it is how they interact with the - it is how they interact with the others — it is how they interact with the others. angela _ it is how they interact with the others. angela rayner- it is how they interact with the | others. angela rayner bringing it is how they interact with the - others. angela rayner bringing the john prescott — others. angela rayner bringing the john prescott energy— others. angela rayner bringing the john prescott energy to _ others. angela rayner bringing the john prescott energy to counter - others. angela rayner bringing the i john prescott energy to counter that is an interesting _ john prescott energy to counter that is an interesting thing. _ john prescott energy to counter that is an interesting thing. and - john prescott energy to counter that is an interesting thing. and seeing l is an interesting thing. and seeing how it _ is an interesting thing. and seeing how it settles _ is an interesting thing. and seeing how it settles down. _ is an interesting thing. and seeing how it settles down. the - is an interesting thing. and seeing how it settles down. the pieces i is an interesting thing. and seeing how it settles down. the pieces ofj how it settles down. the pieces of the snowstorm _ how it settles down. the pieces of the snowstorm all _ how it settles down. the pieces of the snowstorm all around - how it settles down. the pieces of the snowstorm all around but - how it settles down. the pieces ofj the snowstorm all around but they settle _ the snowstorm all around but they settle and — the snowstorm all around but they settle and interesting _ the snowstorm all around but they settle and interesting to _ the snowstorm all around but they settle and interesting to see - the snowstorm all around but theyl settle and interesting to see where they land — settle and interesting to see where they land he — settle and interesting to see where the land. ., , settle and interesting to see where the land. .,, i. ., ., they land. he was your favourite character from _ they land. he was your favourite character from the _ they land. he was your favourite character from the new - they land. he was your favourite character from the new i - they land. he was your favourite character from the new i love i character from the new i love listening... character from the new i love listening- - -— character from the new i love listening... jess robinson does rachel reeves _ listening... jess robinson does rachel reeves and _ listening... jess robinson does rachel reeves and the - listening... jess robinson does rachel reeves and the first - listening... jess robinson does i rachel reeves and the first sketch there _ rachel reeves and the first sketch there was— rachel reeves and the first sketch there was instant _ rachel reeves and the first sketch there was instant recognisability. there was instant recognisability from _ there was instant recognisability from the — there was instant recognisability from the audience _ there was instant recognisability from the audience how- there was instant recognisability from the audience howjess - there was instant recognisability from the audience howjess was| there was instant recognisability- from the audience howjess was doing it. from the audience howjess was doing it the _ from the audience howjess was doing it the technique _ from the audience howjess was doing it. the technique was _ from the audience howjess was doing it. the technique was start _ from the audience howjess was doing it. the technique was start at - it. the technique was start at stacey— it. the technique was start at stacey solomon, _ it. the technique was start at stacey solomon, oddly - it. the technique was start at i stacey solomon, oddly enough. it. the technique was start at - stacey solomon, oddly enough. and then bring _ stacey solomon, oddly enough. and then bring it — stacey solomon, oddly enough. and then bring it down _ stacey solomon, oddly enough. and then bring it down to— stacey solomon, oddly enough. and then bring it down to this _ stacey solomon, oddly enough. and then bring it down to this kind - stacey solomon, oddly enough. and then bring it down to this kind of- then bring it down to this kind of place _ then bring it down to this kind of place here _ then bring it down to this kind of place here i_ then bring it down to this kind of place here. ithink— then bring it down to this kind of place here. i think that - then bring it down to this kind of place here. i think that is - then bring it down to this kind of place here. i think that is how. then bring it down to this kind of. place here. i think that is how she decoded _ place here. i think that is how she decoded it — place here. i think that is how she decoded it— place here. i think that is how she decoded it. ., ,, , ., ., , decoded it. thank you for giving us a taste of that. _ decoded it. thank you for giving us a taste of that. when _ decoded it. thank you for giving us a taste of that. when you - decoded it. thank you for giving us a taste of that. when you look- decoded it. thank you for giving us a taste of that. when you look at l a taste of that. when you look at the cabinet, who do you think are

most in tune with your values in the labour party? i most in tune with your values in the labour party?— most in tune with your values in the labour party? i find angela rayner's work really important. _ labour party? i find angela rayner's work really important. i— labour party? i find angela rayner's work really important. i think - labour party? i find angela rayner's work really important. i think she i work really important. i think she will make a huge —— it will make a huge difference to people's lives. and the attacks on trade union movement since the 805, this is how we can address that. movement since the 80s, this is how we can address that.— we can address that. stephanie, a closin: we can address that. stephanie, a closing thought _ we can address that. stephanie, a closing thought on _ we can address that. stephanie, a closing thought on the _ we can address that. stephanie, a closing thought on the new- closing thought on the new landscape? i closing thought on the new landscape?— closing thought on the new landscae? . , ., ~ closing thought on the new landscae? . , . ~' ., landscape? i am struck talking to jeremy hunt. _ landscape? i am struck talking to jeremy hunt, that _ landscape? i am struck talking to jeremy hunt, that we _ landscape? i am struck talking to jeremy hunt, that we do - landscape? i am struck talking to jeremy hunt, that we do not - landscape? i am struck talking to| jeremy hunt, that we do not have landscape? i am struck talking to i jeremy hunt, that we do not have to worry. _ jeremy hunt, that we do not have to worry, most— jeremy hunt, that we do not have to worry, most normal people do not have _ worry, most normal people do not have to _ worry, most normal people do not have to worry about the differences between _ have to worry about the differences between them over the next years. they will— between them over the next years. they will not have much impact on policy _ they will not have much impact on policy but — they will not have much impact on policy but they do have to decide what _ policy but they do have to decide what party they are going to be, whether— what party they are going to be, whether a — what party they are going to be, whether a trump —type populists ask all the _ whether a trump —type populists ask all the quiet confidence, rebuilding trustjeremy hunt talked all the quiet confidence, rebuilding trust jeremy hunt talked about. interesting to hear he would be willing for the leadership race to go long. we have gone on long enough this morning. a thank you to all my

guests. and to you for your company. victoria's here next week, so that's nearly it from me for the summer. as ever, i'll be with paddy o'connell on weekend newscast on bbc sounds later. there he is. and tomorrow night on bbc one at 8, do watch panorama. we've been behind closed doors with the new government in its first two weeks. and then i'll see you on september 8th. same time, same place. but as promised, here is nicola to say goodbye. music: ashokan farewell by jay ungar.

live from london. this is bbc news the chancellor, rachel reeves, hints she will award public sector workers

above inflation pay increases. a cost to not settling, industrial action, the challenge we face recruiting and retaining doctors and nurses and teachers but we will do it in a proper way and make sure the former president donald trump tells republican supporters at a michigan rally he �*took a bullet for democracy�* israel says it has intercepted a missile launched from yemen shortly after the israeli air force carried out a series of strikes. residents on the spanish island of majorca are set to protest against the surge in tourism that is being blamed for plummeting living standards hello. the chancellor has hinted that public sector workers may recieve an above inflation pay rise this summer.rachel reeves made