tonight at ten: president trump is defiant after sacking the head of the fbi without warning. absolutely explosive news out of washington tonight. the abrupt dismissal ofjames comey triggers political shockwaves but donald trump claims he had lost the confidence of almost everyone in washington. reporter: why did you fire director comey? because he wasn't doing a good job, very simply. he was not doing a good job. heading back to washington, stripped of hisjob, james comey had been investigating links between trump's campaign team and russia. are people going to suspect cover—up? absolutely. we'll be asking what impact james comey‘s departure will have. also tonight. no conservatives will face charges for breaches of expenses rules over the 2015 general election says the crown prosecution service labour the crown prosecution service. labour and the lib dems take the election campaign to the classroom both pledging billions more pounds for education paid for by business. the 11—year—old girl who died on a school trip to a theme park in staffordshire,

her family says their world has been torn apart. as us—backed forces drive more islamic state extremists from their strongholds, we talk to the foreign fighters trying to get back to europe. 50 years after their debut album, we talk to pink floyd ahead of the opening of a new exhibition charting the band's success. and coming up in sportsday on bbc news, atletico madrid needed an almighty comeback to beat city rivals real. who would be joining juventus for the champions league final in cardiff? good evening. president trump has defended his decision to fire the head of the fbi, insisting that james comey‘s replacement would do a far betterjob. the president claims america's most

senior law enforcement official had lost the confidence of almost everyone in washington and said republicans and democrats alike would eventually thank him. james comey was leading an fbi investigation into alleged links between the trump campaign team and russia. his abrupt removal has brought charges from some quarters of a cover—up. here's our north america editorjon sopel. this is a fox news alert. fbi directorjames comey has been fired by the president of the united states. the term breaking news is banded around with abandon. last night, it was justified. because at fbi offices the first they knew that their director had been fired was when it flashed up on their tv screens. and james comey, who was in los angeles addressing staff, knew nothing about it either until an aide handed him a note and the letter sent by president trump was brutal. "you are hereby terminated and removed from office, effective immediately." at least they left him

the government jet to fly back to the east coast, a private citizen, a turbulent career cut short. and today the president was unrepentant. reporter: why did you fire director comey? because he wasn't doing a good job, very simply. he was not doing a good job. james comey, the 68" tall fbi director, was the person who confirmed in bombshell testimony in march that the trump campaign was under investigation for its links to russia during the election. the fbi, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. the president has railed consistently that it's fake news and there has been no improper conduct. last night, he fired the man heading the inquiry. it's caused fury and dismay among some republicans and all democrats. we know director comey was leading an investigation in whether the trump campaign colluded with the russians, a serious offence.

were those investigations getting too close to home for president? the dismissal of director comey establishes a very troubling pattern. and democrats have wasted no time in drawing parallels with the dark days of the nixon presidency when richard nixon, in 1973, fired the special prosecutor investigating him over the break—in at the watergate building. it was known as the saturday night massacre. a year later, nixon would resign. for special prosecutor then, insert fbi director today. it was brazen. one of the most staggering, stunning acts of a president compromising an investigation since the saturday night massacre involving richard nixon. in fact, it was a nixonion act and reminds us all about the importance of the rule of law, which evidently donald trump does not respect. but the white house is seeking to persuade people that the decision to fire comey had nothing to do

with russia or the fbi investigation. it was time for a fresh start at the fbi. and i think the president did, as he's done in so many other cases, he took decisive action, he provided strong leadership and to act on the recommendation of the deputy attorney general. the white house says the loss of confidence stems from james comey‘s investigation into hillary clinton's use of a private e—mail server from when she was secretary of state. i made a mistake using a private e—mail. he decided lastjuly there would be no prosecution, just a wrap on the knuckles. republicans were furious. then, stunningly, he reopened his inquiry 11 days before polling. it took guts for director comey to make the move that he made. but if it really is all about the way the fbi conducted the hillary clinton investigation, why sack him now? why this intervention? why not do it when donald trump

first came to office? and how do you reconcile it with the praise that was heaped upon james comey? whatever, it's left the fbi feeling very sore about the way their director's been treated. and into the washington maelstrom who should arrive today for his first visit to see the trump administration, why none other than sergey lavrov, the russian foreign minister. injokey mood. was he fired? you are kidding! he then went to meet donald trump at the white house but curiously for the camera—loving president the press was kept away. this feels like house of cards on steroids. and jon's at the white house for us tonight. such shock across washington today an extraordinary political moment. yeah, ithink yeah, i think this is one of those once ina yeah, i think this is one of those once in a generation occurrences, you know, ithink once in a generation occurrences, you know, i think it was mark twain

who said history doesn't repeat itself but it rhymes, the only other fbi director you have seen sacked was by bill clinton in 1993, but perhaps the nearest parallel is with richard nixon in 1973 when he was being investigated by a special prosecutor and he fired him and that led as we all know to the end of richard nixon having to resign in disgrace. one thing we have learned from all of this, this is remember only 110 days or so into the trump presidency, we have so far seen now the head of the fbi fired, we have seen the acting attorney general fired, we have seen the senior attorney in new york fired. it tells us attorney in new york fired. it tells us that the most dangerous place to stand is anywhere where donald trump is moving and he wants to get to and you are in the way. where does this leave the investigation into russian links to the trump campaign team? well, i think there are going to be all sorts of calls now, we have seen some today for a special prosecutor

to be appointed so that it is at arm's length from the justice department who were instrumental in the firing of james comey. department who were instrumental in the firing ofjames comey. he himself has been invited to give evidence next tuesday to the senate intelligence committee. i think touts would be able to do good business there were it not for the fa ct business there were it not for the fact it's held in private. i guess the wider issue is this, donald trump insists there is nothing there to see over russia, there has been no improper conduct and it's all fa ke no improper conduct and it's all fake news. but what had donald trump done, has he made this story go away 01’ done, has he made this story go away or given it booster rockets? an awful lot of people think it's the latter. thank you. the conservative party has welcomed the decision of the crown prosecution service not to bring criminal charges against any of its politicians or officials following an investigation into alleged breaches of election expenses rules in 2015. the conservatives called the allegations politically motivated and a waste of police time but the cps says it's still considering one case relating to the south thanet

constituency in kent. here's our home affairs correspondent tom symonds. i'm on the bus. the last general election, conservative activists tour the country by battle bus, staying in a string of hotels as they campaign for local candidates. party officials declared the cost of this as national election expenses, not local. and political rivals said the law had been broken. but today prosecutors decided there was no case to answer. after full and lengthy investigation, the legal authorities have confirmed what we believed all along, and what we said all along, which was that the expenses, that local spending was properly reported, was properly declared and that the candidates had done nothing wrong. prosecutors said today that under the relevant law it must be proved that a suspect, that's the local official putting in the declaration, knew the return was inaccurate and acted dishonestly in signing the declaration.

but in these cases the local officials said they'd been told what to do by the national party, which wasn't prosecuted but did receive a record penalty from the electoral commission. gregg kinsell and his partner louise were also on the bus supporting a string of conservative candidates. but they went to the police about how the campaign was run. their response to today's news? i think this is absolutely disgusting, it's a cover—up on a huge level and i think that the electoral commission are involved in it, and i think the cps and the government. i think it's all to deflect attention from what really goes on behind the scenes. it's not entirely ogled. it's not entirely over. the candidate and former mp for south thanet, craig mackinlay, avoiding interviews today, could still be charged. prosecutors are reviewing spending in his constituency in the 2015 election.

tomorrow is the last day on which he could be replaced on the ballot paper. but he's not going to hear about any prosecution by then. so, for now, it seems the conservatives are pushing on with him as their candidate, no doubt holding their breaths. tom symonds, bbc news, westminster. labour and the liberal democrats have both promised to invest billions of pounds more in education if they win the election. labour is promising an extra £81; billion by 2022 in england, that's at least four times more than the lib dems. but both say they'd pay for it by significantly raising business taxes. the conservatives say school funding has already reached record levels and accused their rivals of made up promises. our education editor bra nwen jeffreys reports. we're going to take lots of measurements of how long it takes for the sound to get to us. measuring the speed of sound in cambridge. today a lesson in politics as well as science — news travelling of money for education.

at a college in leeds it was all about lifelong learning. labour promising to invest in adult training but, most of all, in schools, paid for by a rise in corporation tax. we have a problem in britain, we have not invested enough in manufacturing industry, we have not invested enough in infrastructure, we have not invested enough in the skilled workers, engineers, scientists and teachers of tomorrow. we are determined to turn that round. labour promises for england include extra money each year for schools, reaching £4.8 billion by 2022, almost a 10% increase on current spending. £1.5 billion extra for adult skills training, and no school losing under a funding formula to share out money across england. a promise matched by the lib dems. the party also says it would spend £5.8 billion extra on schools in england over the next four years, and more for poorer pupils. £660 million on further education.

the lib dems suggested they would also raise taxes on businesses. two thirds of schools, it now turns out today, are trying to lay off at least one teacher, losing at least one teaching post in the next two months. under that kind of pressure, there needs to be a response, a fully costed response, to build a future for all of our children so we can have a decent education and be confident in that. schools in cambridgeshire are among the lowest funded in england. all the secondary teachers here wrote to parents with a warning. we've said there will be fewer teachers and fewer teaching assistants, we've said there will be fewer resources in classrooms, whether that is exercise books, la pto ps. fewer opportunities for students to perhaps go on trips or sporting fixtures. we have said across the board there will be an impact and reductions. this school is one of thousands across england that have been writing to parents, spelling out the difficult financial decisions that lie ahead. that has galvanised parents to lobby mps of all parties.

it is that grassroots pressure which has really pushed school budgets onto the election agenda. the costs in schools are rising faster than budget, but today the conservatives defended their record. first of all, school funding is at record levels. we've also... within that we're putting record number of funding into early education, protected the school pupil premium at 2.5 billion, worth {2.5 billion. but what matters in education is, actually, it's notjust about the funding, it's about the results you see and the education you are providing for the children. 0k, what have you got? labour and lib dems say there will also be extra education cash for the rest of the uk. today, for young voters, no details yet on tuition fees. labour might well promise to scrap them in its manifesto, an issue still toxic for the lib dems after they broke their promise not to raise them.

branwen jeffreys, bbc news. so the big boost in funding for schools under labour and the lib dems would be paid for by a significant rise in corporation tax. our economics editor, kamal ahmed has been looking at how much could be raised and what impact it would have on businesses in the uk. thanks, sophie. it seems a pretty simple equation, put more money into public services and pay for it by raising taxes. labour and the liberal democrats say they want to pay for the planned boost to the schools budget by increasing corporation tax which is a tax on business profits. the present rate is 19%, a figure which has fallen dramatically from 28% in 2010. labour has said it wants to raise the rate to 26% by 2021, one of the biggest tax rises business has seen for three decades. the conservatives on the other hand want to keep cutting the tax saying

they will reduce the rate to 17% by 2020. the big question, of course, will a business tax rise bring in the £20 billion all labour's policy, for example, needs. the labour party proposals would certainly raise more than enough from corporation tax to pay for these increases in school funding, but of course an increase in corporation tax has significant economic effects. it will reduce investment by companies in the uk and in the long one it won't raise as much as it might in the short run, as companies change their behaviour, reduce investment, or, indeed, move abroad. now, the surprising thing about corporation tax is this: cutting it can bring in more money and raising it can bring you less than expected. as firms change the way they operate to avoid higher taxes. let's look at the numbers. in 2010, when corporation tax was 28%, it raised £113 billion in revenue for the government.

by 2016 the tax had been cut to 20%, but that amount raised figure had gone up to £19] billion, confounding the official forecast. that's because the economy strengthened, boosting profits, and the government introduced other business taxes. labour says it can continue the trend of increasing the amount of tax firms pay and others agree that raising the rate will hit the treasury. —— will not hit the