secretary, jeremy hunt. let's have a look at his campaign so far. i'm the underdog in this race. i've been the underdog right from the start, and i like to prove people wrong. i'll be the first prime minister who has a background as an entrepreneur. the best way to get a deal is to leave no deal on the table. this is not a photo opportunity. i'll be the first prime minister we've ever had with a background as an entrepreneur. i'm not sure there's a huge difference between me and boris except that i think i'm more likely to be able to negotiate a deal. no prime minister is going to last any time at all if they don't deliver brexit and deliver it very quickly. i'll be the first prime minister to have been an entrepreneur. we have started by saying that we're going to turn a coronation into a contest. now we're going to turn a contest into an upset. jeremy hunt, like theresa may, you voted to remain. like theresa may, you are a tory technocrat. voted for her brexit deal three

times. why would the tories want more of the same when it's hardly been a golden age for them? because, andrew, iam a totally different person, and i have a totally different plan. and i did vote three times for theresa may's deal, and i'll tell you exactly why, because i wanted to leave the european union as quickly as possible. and had we voted to do that, as indeed did borisjohnson and jacob rees mogg and many other people, we would have left the eu by now, and i think we would have been in a better position as a country. a lot of tories look at you and say, we tried you, it didn't work. trying theresa in trousers isn't going to be any better. well, i am certainly not that, and i am the person who argued in the cabinet very strongly for a different approach to these negotiations. i didn't think the backstop was the right way forward. i thought we should have negotiated

harder, but i was also a loyal foreign secretary, and i think theresa may had a tremendous sense of duty to our country, and i owed her that loyalty. but now we have a leadership contest, i am arguing for a different approach, and that is what i'll deliver as prime minister. the problem is that in this leadership contest, almost everything you say flies in the face of your previous positions. you mentioned the backstop. you claimed the irish backstop was never something you believed in, that you argued against it. can i remind you, mr hunt, you voted for it, not once, not twice but three times. yellow indeed. so where is the credibility? the reason i voted for it was that at every stage i voted for us to leave the european union as quickly as possible, and i didn't think it was perfect. i would have preferred today to be outside the european union, to have left the eu, to have

resolve that issue, and then to tackle the imperfections in that deal, the main one of which was the backstop. as i say, are the leading eurosceptics, people like jacob rees mogg, for exactly the same reason also voted for that deal because they also wanted us to leave as quickly as possible. it does give you a credibility problem. for example, after the 2016 referendum, you said there should be a general election or another referendum on the terms of the uk exit, and of course because now you the terms of the uk exit, and of course because now you are the terms of the uk exit, and of course because now you are trying to lead a brexit party, such words would never leave your lips. what i said in that article, written a week after the referendum result, was that there should be democratic endorsement of the shape of the brexit that we did, and that is indeed what happened. we had a general election in which over 80% of the country voted for parties

that wanted to leave the european single market and leave the customs union, so we've had that endorsement of the shape of brexit. and that is what i am supporting. we did not know in the 2017 election what the terms would be would be, we didn't know the shape of the deal, the deal hadn't been done. are what i was arguing for is the principles of whether we stayed in or out of the single market, whether we stayed in or out of the customs union... you wanted a referendum on the terms, mr hunt, you are changing your position to try and sound consistent but you're not consistent. not at all. the terms, the basic principles of whether we leave, the terms of whether we stay in the single market or not, those were not resolved by the referendum, they were resolved by the election and i have voted at every stage... and i want to tell you the most important reason why i voted. how can i be a foreign secretary who stands up for democratic principles in somewhere like hong kong

if i'm not prepared to stand up for democratic principles at home in this, one of the oldest, most robust democracies in the world? i am someone who says, we are known for being the country where people like me do what the people tell us to do and that is why, when it comes to something as important as the brexit referendum, we have to show the world that yes, we are that democracy, where the people are the boss. that is in our country's dna and also in my dna as well. at the moment under your government, to the rest of the world we look like a democracy that hasn't got a clue where it's going. you say the new prime minister... that's what i want to resolve and that is why we need to choose someone who can resolve it. you say the new prime minister has to be someone brussels will talk to, that's your words. are you saying brussels wouldn't talk to borisjohnson? people can make their own conclusions but as you kindly... i'm asking you what you meant by that statement.

otherwise the statement is meaningless. you must be implying brussels will not talk to borisjohnson. no. i have avoided in this leadership campaign making personal comments about boris because we have got to come together as a party at the end of this. let me tell you exactly what i meant by that statement to you kindly showed in the clip before, i will be the first prime minister who has been an entrepreneur. 0r you're an entrepreneur?! who knew that? will have you not heard that before, andrew?! let's make it breaking news on this interview because i think that's a significant point. what do you do when you are negotiating as an entrepreneur? you have to do a deal with someone you trust. people will not do a deal with people they don't trust and this is very important. because at the moment, parliament is trying to take no deal off the table. it succeeded in march. it is trying again. the quickest way to leave the european union is to send to brussels a prime minister who can negotiate a deal that will get through parliament, and i'm that person. when you were an entrepreneur,

you didn't do negotiations anything like what would be required in brussels, anything like the scale. you go on about being an entrepreneur, you weren't exactly steve jobs or bill gates, where you?! no, i wasn't... it doesn't train you to do in negotiations in brussels. i think you do learn the basics of negotiation, you learn the basics of being prepared to walk away from at the basics have not been able to blink. that you need more than the basics, mr hunt. this could be the smallest contract for someone trying to get a business off the ground, as i did, but those basics remain the same. i will tell you that in government, those same skills i used to negotiate very complex things like the licence fee deal with the bbc, nhs pay awards, indeed the protracted dispute to try and get a peace process going in yemen. that business of negotiation have been something i have been doing all my life. let's be honest, you may have been doing it all your life but you have no track record on successful

negotiation in the big league. maybe in the minor league but this is the big league, mr hunt. don't belittle people up and down the country who have built up businesses... you know that's not what i'm doing. it is. because you are saying that those skills you learn doing those small things early in your life are not relevant to later on. of course they are. they are how all of us learn to do the big things. speaking of boris johnson, when you try to pin him down to back our ambassador in washington in the itv debate, and he didn't, you must have realised then that that made the ambassador's resignation more likely. i was disappointed, because i think we have to back our diplomats all over the world. we actually have probably the best diplomats of any country, highly professional people, and sir kim was doing hisjob. he was giving his own personal, totally honest

view about the country he was serving in. did it make his resignation more likely? he said it was one of the factors, he has said that. not being backed by borisjohnson. has he told you that? he has said it publicly, actually, and i think he has been clear that that was one of the factors and i think it's a great shame. because as foreign secretary, i need our ambassadors to be able to tell me as foreign secretary exactly what is going on in their countries, exactly what they think. and i think they need to know that we are going to stand behind them. back to brexit. you say that if there is no prospect of a deal by the 30th of september you will immediately cease all discussions with the eu, focus the whole country's mission on no deal preparations. but why would you do that before your very first eu summit, which is not until october the 17th? this isjust a posture for brexit votes. it makes no sense. it does... before an eu summit? because we will still talk to the eu, it is entirely possible that if those talks are going well, they would

summon an extra summit in septemberfor them they want to resolve this quickly as well. what i am saying is that it is very straightforward. the thing to go back to, your very first question, the main thing i would do differently to theresa may is i would not be proposing anything to brussels that we cannot get through parliament. my negotiating team would have the dup, the erg, the brexit purists in our party, scottish and welsh conservatives, because we must think about the union as well, we will put that deal together in august, discussing it with the irish government... if you're lucky. we will put that deal together and it will be a deal that can get through parliament because it will be a deal that works for those groups of people. in september we will then have proper formal discussions with the eu and i think we will know pretty quickly if there is a deal to be done. if there isn't, we will not hang around... you would walk away before your first summit? it is not walking away...

it is, you could decide there is no point and you have not even had a summit with the eu. i thought you said you had learned a lot about negotiation! yes, and we will be talking to eu leaders, i will be talking to them in august and september. you don't need an eu summit to talk to eu leaders that you can have those discussions. i know you want people to take you seriously on leaving with no deal, particularly the kind of tory electorate you have to appeal to... as they should. only in february you said, failing to secure a ratified withdrawal agreement would be deeply damaging, politically as well as economically and you are now prepared to take us down a deeply damaging route. i have never hidden from the risks of no deal. but we are a democracy, as i said to you, and i have always said, and this is something i have said ever since we made that referendum decision, if the only way to leave the eu was without a deal, we should do that and we could make a success of it. but the way we will make a success of it is by being honest about the

risks to business, about the risks to our union. just think what nicola sturgeon would do. the risks in northern ireland. the way you deal with those problems is not by pretending they don't exist, but by facing them head on, and that is what i would do as prime minister and that's why i have announced a package... we will come onto that in a minute but you told us only a year ago that the only person rejoicing at a no—deal brexit would be vladimir putin. that is the route you are now prepared to go. iam. so that mr putin can rejoice. make the kremlin happy. well, vladimir putin wants anything that causes disruption. you are going to provide it. what i was saying in that interview is that we have to be very careful. i was saying to the europeans actually come in that interview, because i was in holland when i gave that interview, to be very careful. if you think that no deal is going to be a smooth process, it risks

fracturing... you called it a huge geostrategic mistake, that we would regret for generations. why would you want to go down this road if that is what you really think? i don't want to go down... i am prepared to because we are a democracy. in the end, leadership, being the prime minister of our country is about making choices and the number one choice i make, andrew, is that we are a democracy and we do what the people tell us. and if we take those risks, we will make them work, but my argument that interview to european countries is that this is not something that you, in europe, should take lightly either because the strength of europe has been that partnership between the uk and europe and that is why we should avoid this if we can. how can you make something work that you believe we will regret for generations? i said the europeans would regret... no, you said we would regret it too. it was injuly you were talking about the europeans. it was in august you

were talking about us. you said, it was to itv news, you said it would be a huge strategic mistake, we would regret it for generations. i guess my point is, mr hunt, if that is what you really think, and that is what you really think, why don't you leave it to somebody else to deliver this? somebody who really believes in it? when you clearly don't believe in it. you clearly think it is the wrong way to go. no, and let me answer that question very directly. what i was talking about in that interview was that for the whole of europe, there are risks in no deal, and it is better to avoid them by coming to a deal, and at that point in the negotiations, they were refusing to budge and i was pointing out to them the risks of that. but what i say as prospective prime minister of this country is that, as a democracy, we are leaving the european union. if the only way that the europeans will allow that to happen is without a deal, then so be it, we will do it. but it is not my first choice.

you're absolutely right. there are elements of no deal that will be very disruptive to businesses, very disruptive to our union. but we will make it work. we are britain, we are a country that has had much bigger challenges than that in our past. if i think about the d—day celebrations, all that stuff... i have heard all the rhetoric, mr hunt. this is not rhetoric. the facts here are that if we want to avoid those potentially difficult consequences in a no deal situation, choose a prime minister who can negotiate a deal that also happens to be the lowest risk way of leaving the european union. let's look at the deal you want to do. do you intend to replace the may agreement or to change it? to change it. and what is the single biggest change you want to make? the backstop. and if you got that, would that, by and large, make it acceptable? i think it would broadly make it

deliverable within parliament. i think that is certainly earlier this year that would be the case but i will be putting together a negotiating team. what other changes would you want? that is the principal change. what other changes? i'm saying that is the main change. that's the only change, let's be honest. it is the main change. it's the only change you want, mr hunt. i happen to think it's the main one, there may be others. but you can't tell me. what i've said to you, andrew, if you remember from the earlier answer, is that i will put together a negotiating team which has that coalition to get the deal through parliament and i will listen and be clear that we will not propose anything that we cannot get through parliament. that claim that chancellor merkel has told you she is prepared to look at changes to the withdrawal agreement. we have spoken to the german chancellery and they have told us the withdrawal agreement is not up for renegotiation. what i said was that chancellor merkel had said to me, if a new british prime minister came forward with a different plan

for the northern irish border, of course they would look at the package, and that is because they want to find a solution to this. the question is... it's not a choice about whether or not we leave, that decision has been made, it is who is the prime minister who is most likely to get us out of the eu quickly and my worry is that if people vote with their hearts, perhaps, instead of their heads, we will end up with a general election before we get to brexit. but if they support me, they are choosing someone who is not going to pretend this is easy, but someone who actually has a chance of getting us out of the european union quickly, which means a deal that can get through parliament and that is what i can do. you have said you would go beyond october the 31st, if we were close to a deal. many people may think that is the grown—up approach. why would you walk away if you could see in days or weeks a deal could be done if you needed a bit more time? but how much more time? what i have said is that at the end of september...

i got that bit. good. we are now at the end of october, and you think a deal could be done so you will extend the deadline. by how much would you be prepared to go? if we have a deal by the end of september and it takes a little bit more than a month to get through parliament... you won't have a deal by the end of september, mr hunt! i believe we can. really?! i believe we can and, as i say, i think the people like angela merkel want to solve this problem. if we have a deal, if it is clear to us and the europeans there is a deal to be done, then of course i would go for that. if it took a little bit, a few extra days to get it through parliament... just a few extra days? i think in that situation, parliament would be willing to sit at weekends, would be willing to sit late to do this. but i think it may take a few extra days and i would be willing to allow those days, yes. so you go through october 31st, i'm not arguing with that for the purposes of this interview,

but can you give us some kind of commitment as to how or when under you we would be out? would it be days or weeks or months? it is not going to be months, andrew. would we be gone by christmas? as i say, i am not going to give you those commitments because... why? because i think getting stuff through parliament... listen, i will tell you why. it is because prime ministers should only make promises they know they can deliver. and there is another reason why we have to be careful about this 31st of october date. it is because parliament may try and take a no—deal brexit off the table altogether and so i think, my commitment is that i think i am the best person to get a deal, and if we get a deal, it will be on or around the 31st of october but i can't control what parliament does and that is why i'm being honest with people about the difficulties. if it is on or around the 31st, it has to be before christmas. i would expect so, yes. you would expect so but you cannot say for sure. is there any chance we could still go in to 2020 and still be a member of the eu?

i don't believe so, no. but you don't rule it out. i don't believe that would be the case... this is why people don't really trust you on this. they don't see that... it could linger on and on and on, as under theresa may. what people get with me is a prime minister who will get them out of the eu more quickly than the alternative... you just can't tell us when. because i'm being honest with people. this is a negotiation. i don't control the parliamentary timetable. what would you rather, andrew? just a straight answer. that's what i'm giving you. you haven't because you can't tell us when we would be out come rain or high water. a straight answer is not giving a date that you can't deliver. and what has just happened in this country? we have had a big betrayal of trust because we had a prime minister who, with the best of intentions, made a promise we would leave by the end of march. she did not deliver that. i'm not going to make that mistake. i am saying this. if you want to leave the eu quickly,

if you want to avoid a general election, which is the risk if you go about this in the wrong way, i am the person who has the biggest chance of negotiating that deal and getting us out by october the 31st. you've made a raft of expensive promises to increase spending and cut taxes in this tory campaign. do these promises stand whether we leave with a deal or no deal? the business tax cuts, the corporation tax does, because that is preparation for no deal. we should do that whether or not we leave with a deal. but the other spending commitments, for example the defence spending pledge, some of the things i have been talking about this morning, that would take longer in a no deal situation. so you would take half of the current chancellor's headroom you would take about half of that to cut taxes for business? this is his fighting fund for no deal, and you are going to spend 50% of that slashing taxes on business and businesses who have already had major cuts on taxes. that's your plan?

correct, and let me tell you why. first of all, because in a no—deal situation, you will have a shock to the economy with the imposition of tariffs and this is a good way to give businesses more headroom to deal with those changes. but secondly, i think this is the nub of the argument i'm making, i want to fire up businesses, to get young people starting their own businesses just as i started my own business. i accept that cutting corporation tax is not the most popular tax cut, but what it does, if you look at what president trump did in america, he cut business taxes and it increased the american growth rate. it is now growing at about twice our rate, about 3% compared to our 1.5%. if we did that in this country, we would have an extra £20 billion to spend on precious public services and further tax cuts and that is the heart of our success as a country, to fire up the economy.

mr trump's corporation tax cuts was only a small part of an overall fiscal package which has increased the deficit by $2 trillion in america. it has given them a deficit of 5% of gdp. the corporation tax cuts were small in that huge stimulus. is that your plan in britain, to get a bigger and bigger deficit, as in america? 0ur context of course is different, but it is different in two ways. first of all, my corporation tax cuts are much more radical than anything that president trump did. to bring those corporation tax rates down to 12.5%, the very lowest in the world, as low as the levels in ireland. and incidentally, when ireland did those cuts they had a gdp per head that was lower than ours now. it is now 50% higher. you cannot link the two. that is absurd. it may have played a part. the fact is, mr hunt, we have at a bigger cut in corporation tax on business under your government in the past ten years.

we have had the slowest recovery in history. where was the turbocharger? a thousand jobs created every single day that we have been in office. you just said growth isn't fast enough. let me answer the question, andrew. we have had, we faced the worst financial recession since the second world war. we have turned around the economy. that is why, by the way, i was able to secure the biggest everfunding increase in history for the nhs. i will come onto that. i want the nhs to be brilliant but i could only do that if we turned around the economy. can you tell me one major business that has told you that uk corporation tax is the biggest problem facing them? well, businesses welcome business tax cuts... they always do that! can you tell me any business that has said to you, you really need to cut corporation tax? i'm not doing this because businesses have asked me. i'm doing this because it is going to grow our economy and put us

in a strong shape to deal with a no—deal brexit. it hasn't so far. can you tell me any businesses asking you to do this? businesses say that if you... which ones? hang on, andrew, if you don't mind letting me answer the question. i am telling you that businesses ask for business tax cuts. my business tax cuts package includes corporation tax, increases in the capital allowances that will boost our productivity, taking 90% of high street businesses out of business rates. some of these are more popular, some of them are not particular top of people's lists. take them together and you get what you were talking about with president trump, you get a package of tax cuts that will turbo—charge our economy. you keep on saying turbo—charge which is a meaningless phrase. no, it's not. it didn't do it in america, it hasn't done it in britain, but here is the real issue. andrew, get yourfacts right. it did do it in america. america has a very high growth rate, double our growth rate. what i'm saying to you is that that was only a part of a much bigger package. and so is my corporation tax part

of a bigger package. actually, it isn't, you're only going to spend 13 billion in no deal tax cuts, that's all on corporation tax. you were just criticising me saying that was too much. this is the biggest package of business tax cuts that we have had in living memory. here is the point, mr hunt. if there is no deal, the people that will really need help will not be businesses, although they may need help too, it will be those on low incomes. because if the pound plummets, food prices are going to go up, fuel prices are going to go up. those on low incomes will start to struggle. and yet you are going to spend 13 billion on a business tax cut and nothing for them. what do people on low incomes need? they need jobs. what is my package for a no—deal brexit? it is corporation tax cuts so that businesses carry on employing people. it is £6 billion for our farmers and our fishing community so that they don't have to lay people off in a hurry, they can change their business models. this is support for businesses

so that they can carry on supporting individuals and families. so you have your 13 billion for business. you've got 6 billion for farmers and fishing, which is 2% of our economy. what are you going to do for the other 98% of the economy under no deal? i think we have just been talking about the business tax cuts that will help businesses up and down the country. and that's it? this is a £20 billion package to help businesses, whether a no—deal brexit... no one else has announced a package anything like this. this is a very large package there will be other things we are doing, other measures the government will be doing to prepare for a no—deal brexit. my point is this. the way you deal with a shock like this to the economy is to prepare, is to have a plan. then we can avoid that impact on people with low incomes, which of course has to be our first priority. and as you find this extra money, as you borrow it, if you cut taxes and you spend more here,

there and apparently now everywhere, will you still stick to the existing fiscal rules that constrain spending? what i have announced in terms of my tax cuts and spending plans sit within philip hammond's fiscal rule, they sit within the headroom we have. i have been very clear that things that i think we need to do to walk tall in the world, like support our royal navy, invest in our defence, they would take longer to do in a no deal situation... so they couldn't be done at the moment within the fiscal rules? not if we had a no deal situation... taking people out of national insurance cannot be done within the existing rules? not if we had a no—deal brexit — it would take longer to do, correct. a lot more money for social care couldn't be done within the fiscal rules. it would take longer to deliver those promises in a no deal situation, correct. let me turn to health. you were the longest serving health secretary. you said, "i walked around hospitals in the nhs where i have known they need more money and i haven't been able to give it to them." why did you tolerate this underfunding for so long? i didn't. i spent my time as

health secretary... let me be clear about the nhs. i have three kids that were born on the nhs. my father was looked after until the end by brilliant nhs care. but we have a big problem with capacity with the ageing population. after i had been in thejob for two years, i secured an extra £8 billion a year ahead of the 2015 general election. i then went on to secure an extra £20 billion a year... and the rate of increase is still lower than the post—war average under you. the increase i secured was the biggest single... it's the lowest average annual increase, lower than any other government in modern times. andrew, you're playing with statistics. because they're accurate. no, they are not actually, because my increase was the biggest ever. but yes, you are right, we had a period of austerity from 2010 where we had that financial crisis and we were not able to increase it by as much as we wanted to. but then i managed to get that increase and that was because of

those difficult decisions we had taken. jeremy hunt, we have run out of time. thank you forjoining us. thank you. in a moment, i will bejoined by the other candidate in this race, borisjohnson. let's have a look at his campaign so far. after three years and two missed deadlines, we must leave the eu. good morning, everybody. i'm not attracted to the idea of a no deal exit from the eu. we should not be terrified of a no—deal brexit. i'm proud to have officiated over the development of this revolutionary sausage. kick the can again and we kick the bucket. you are peddling optimism. i'm saying we can make a tremendous... the country needs a bit of optimism, frankly. boris, why don't you... actually, i think what people want to know is, what is going on with this guy? does he, when it comes to trust or when it comes to counts, all those things, does he deliver what he says he's going to deliver? borisjohnson, we're going to talk a lot

about policy, but i first want to talk about you, because for many people, including many tories, your character, your reputation, trust you, is as big an issue as the policies you stand for. do you accept that that's a problem for you? no, i don't at all, and i think what people want to see is what my plans are to come out of the eu on october the 31st, get that deal done, take us beyond brexit and unite the country. and i've got a lot of things that i think will be fantastic conservative policies, and i think they want to hear about that. they want to hear about what we can do to fight crime, and i think they'll be interested to know what, the last time i was asked to fight crime here in this city, what we did in getting it down by, i think, about 20% overall, the murder rate down by about 50%. if people are interested in my character and my political credo or whatever, look at what i'd deliver. it went down 20% in london when you were mayor, crime? crime went down roughly

20% when i was mayor. how much did it go down in the same time in the rest of the country? and it was... so, you were behind the rest of the country. no, the murder rate in london... i don't believe the murder rate in the rest of the country went down by 50%. did it? 0verall crime went down faster in the rest of the country, and the murder rate was roughly similar as it fell. so, you didn't outpace the country. i don't think so. you were part of a national trend. if you look at what we did in london, we had a murder rate when i came in running at about 160 a year, something like that. we got it down over four... look at the graph. we got it down, over four or five years, to fewer than 100 murders a city the size of 8.5, 9 million. that was a remarkable achievement. and that was because we had some very robust policing and we backed the police to go out and do theirjob. a particular problem we had was with knife crime and gang crime, and we backed the police to do stop and search in a way

that was systematic and that was... and that's become your policy. but also drove down that particular form of violence. my point is simply that compared to the rest of the country, it was nothing very special. but let us move on. the people of london appreciated it. of course, everybody appreciates when crime falls. and then, by the way... no, no, no, not by the way. no, no, no. no. no? you will follow the questions i want to ask, not the ones you want to be asked. did we get the measure of the man this week? 0ur ambassador in america, kim darroch, he found himself at the centre of a storm. he couldn't count on your support. that's not true at all. he decided he had to resign. why didn't you stand up for our man in washington? 0n the contrary, i stood up completely for the principle that civil servants should be allowed to say what they want to their political masters without fear or favour. you were asked four times in the itv debate to offer him your support. i thought it was disgraceful. why did you not offer him your support?

i support the principle that all civil servants should be able to say what they want to their political masters, and the real... why did you not offer him your support? the real culprits in this, the real culprits are the people who leaked that material. you see, you're doing what you've done throughout this campaign. can ijust... no, you can't. it's a false assertion. you're doing what you've done throughout this campaign. you get asked a question and then you go on to something else which is a sideline to the actual issue. what i'm asking you is that when you were asked four times in the itv debate to support our man in washington, you did not do so. after watching it, he was so dismayed by your failure to do so, it was one of the reasons he resigned. actually, i spoke to him the following day and said how sad i was that he had resigned, and he pointed out that he didn't watch it, so you might need to check your facts before you... he didn't say to you that what had said... he told me that he had not watched the show. well, i'm told that he watched it with his wife. well, i've just spoken to him two

days ago and he said he had not watched it. did he say that you had played any part in his resignation? my view is that he was very sad... no, did he say that to you? he was sad that he resigned, and what he said was that someone had relayed to him what i had said. and did it play a factor in his resignation? he said that what somebody had relayed to him had certainly been a factor. so, your lack of support for him was a factor in his resignation. i think that, unfortunately, what i said on that tv debate was misrepresented to kim, and i... the foreign secretary has told us on this programme that it was a factor. i don't think that it was right, if i may say so. right that his career should have been put into the public domain in the way that it was, and that the career prospects of sir kim darroch, who is an estimable public servant, a great diplomat, should have become a political football. and i think that was a great shame. but that is not the issue that i'm asking you.

jeremy hunt sat in that chair arejust very shortly and he said on this programme that you were a factor in his resignation. kim darroch is saying that. do you accept that? well, as i say, i think that i did everything i could to show that i deplore the leaking of confidential briefs... we know that. that's not my question. this is a question that you must direct to others. my question is... it's to you, because it's your responsibility. do you accept that your failure to support him tipped him into resignation? no, no, idon't. the foreign secretary's saying that. i don't accept that. mr darroch is saying that. no, i don't accept that, because i think that... you don't? no, i think that if people want to, again, turn this into a political football, that's most unfortunate. it is very, very important that we... but you used it as a political football against jeremy hunt. you started to ask him in the itv debate, well, how long will you back him? will it be after christmas, will it be january? will it be february? you used it as a way to avoid answering your own. . . that was because the career prospects of

a distinguished public servant had been dragged into the political debate in a way that i thought was wrong. it's the job of politicians to stick up for civil servants and to support them... and you didn't. listen, i think that it was... i rang kim the following morning and i was very surprised that he resigned. the president called him wacky, pompous, a fool, stupid. you didn't have a word of criticism of the president. i'm on record as saying plenty of critical things of the president in the past. not on this. people worry, will you be as craven if you were prime minister? i've been, you know, towards the united states of america, craven? towards anybody who is powerful in the world. don't be ridiculous. if i may say so. when it comes to sticking up for uk interests, whether it is over climate change or over disputes with iran, over the iran nuclear deal, we have been very, very forthright with the united states of america, andi will continue to be forthright.

by the way, andrew, you may have forgotten that when the president of the united states saw fit to insult london, and actually, rather like you, he deprecated the achievement of london in reducing crime... you said he was stupefying the ignorant. and unfit to hold office. ifired back, as you would expect. using that kind of language? i don't think it is... my point about kim is, i thought it was... is he still stupefyingly ignorant? i thought it was most unfortunate that kim's career was dragged into the public domain. is he still stupefyingly ignorant? of what? mrtrump. rather like you, he seems to think that london, you know, that we didn't achieve as much as i thought we achieved. you're not going to answer, are you? this has been the theme of yourcampaign. i want to come back to when our ambassador was in the front line, in the cross hairs, you did not stand up for him, because that's what worries people. i thought it was totally wrong

to drag into the public domain the career prospects of a senior official, and to turn that into a political football. he just needed your support. i thought what was necessary was to give a general statement of support for the right and the duty and the ability of civil servants to convey their views to ministers confidentially, and to have that confidentiality respected. and unfortunately, what happened in the case of sir kim, who is a great public servant... we know that. his views were leaked. we know all that. you mentioned iran, and this again plays to your reputation for being careless, even cavalier with words, maybe acceptable as a columnist, but perhaps not in high office. british citizen nazanin zaghari—ratcliffe, currently incarcerated in iran, she has found this out to her cost. can you explain to us why as foreign secretary did you say she was teaching journalism in iran? i've already made clear that that was a mistake. why did you say it?

i already made clear that that was a mistake. we know it was a mistake — why did you say it? i've repeated many times that she was on holiday. if i may say, the responsibility for incarcerating nazanin and others... is iran's. nobody‘s arguing about that. it's the one that you go off on all the time to try to avoid answering the question. why did you say... i'm doing my best to answer your question. you seem rather choleric, if i may say so, andrew. i mean, journalism — it's a big difference from being on holiday and teaching journalism. why did you say that? actually, it's not quite what i said. did you read your brief properly? was this sloppy? if you look at what i said, i said that at the limit what she was doing was teaching journalism. what i meant to say was, you know, that was the most they could possibly accuse her of. as it happened, even that was not true. you made a bad situation worse. well, actually, there is no evidence for that. the reality is, the reality is that she is being detained at the behest of the iranian revolution guard.

the issue is not who is behind this. we know the iranians are the bad guys. you are trying to blame me for absolutely anything. we are trying to work out if you made a bad situation even worse, because of the many things that came out on iranian state tv, they welcome your remarks. it was an unintended confession. the issue is, did you master your brief? were you sloppy? did you not get on top of it? because as prime minister, doing that could cost lives. well, as i say, i reject entirely the assertion that anything i said made things worse. and indeed, i think that any attempt by others to point the finger of blame at the uk government... nobody is... you are, if i may say so. i'm not doing that, but i'm trying to work out if you made it worse. there is a volatile situation in the gulf at the moment. correct. it is a dangerous place, our ships are under attack, the royal navy has had to be mobilised. that's absolutely right. all the more reason to be firm

with iran and not to inculcate with iran and not to inculpate ourselves and as it were to assume blame for situations that where the iranians are themselves... no one's doing it. you go off again at a tangent to avoid answering the question. the issue is this — loose lips cost ships, and you have loose lips, mr johnson. when it comes to what is happening, to answer... you know, if you're asking a serious question about what's happening in the persian gulf, clearly we need to make sure that uk shipping, british shipping, oil supplies, can be properly... i was asking about your ability to handle it. let's see if we can get onto brexit, because this is the area of the british people do need to trust you. you say you'll leave on october the 31st, do or die, deal or no deal. yes. but the first eu summit isn't on october the 17th. supposing out that summit

there is a breakthrough and things continue to go well, a deal is in the making, both sides say so, but it can't be done by halloween. are you seriously telling us you'd walk away? i think we've got to come out on october the 31st, and i think it is very odd that those who say they would delay even further can't set another date. how much further are we going to wait? we were meant to come out on march the 29th. we were then meant to come out on april the 8th. we then delayed it for a further six months. i think this is leading to a huge erosion of trust in politics. so, if the eu says to you... and people feel, people feel that unless the government, unless the political parties get their act together and come out of the eu on october the 31st, which is what i will deliver, i think people will not return either to the conservative party or indeed to the labour party, who are also haemorrhaging support. we know they are haemorrhaging support, so are you. hold on, even if the eu says, on the 26th of october, we really are close to a deal and it's going to take another ten days to

two weeks, and you agree with that, you think, yeah, we are, you wouldn't walk away. it would be ludicrous. well, let's. .. we will get a deal by october. it would be ludicrous to walk away, wouldn't it? i think it would be absolutely insane, now, to say that, yet again, we have a phony deadline. it can all be kicked off, kicked down the road until... nobody believes he would walk away in these circumstances. be honest with the british people. i think it is very, very important that we get ready to leap on october the 31st, come what may. and we will. this is a great country and a great economy and we can prepare for it. i think actually the people of this country are fed up with being told that they can't do x, yorz. they have got to prepare to stay in, that their politicians are fundamentally incapable of making these choices. so let's see on what basis you would

be prepared to take us out. we were mandated as a parliament to come out of the eu. we have voted overwhelmingly to trigger article 50. we know all this, mrjohnson. you may know it, people in the country don't know and it's high time... this bluster might get you to the hustings, it doesn't work with me. i'm trying to pin you down on some facts. you seem very... andrew, if i may say so. you have said the may deal is dead, defunct. but if the eu agreed to a crucial change in the irish backstop, the kind of change you want, you would back it, that would be enough, wouldn't it? they said they are not going to do that. if they did, it would be enough. everybody says they are not going to. listen, what we need to do... you want a change. shall i tell you what it will do? no, i'd like you to answer my question. you don't want me to tell you what will do? i'd like you to tell me what you would do if the eu agreed to a suitable change to the irish backstop. what they need to do to the irish backstop, as i have said repeatedly in this election process, is they need to take the 175 pages of the irish

backstop and they need basically to remit it, remove it, to delete it, and to put the solution to all the issues of frictionless trade across the irish border and indeed elsewhere, and resolve them in the context of the fta, the free trade agreement, that we will do after that we have come out on october the 31st. there is a problem with that. the european union doesn't see the backstop as part of the future negotiations. it sees the backstop as a fallback should these negotiations fail. no, no, no! should they fail. it is a precondition for you to negotiate and they won't change their mind on that. that's, if i may say so, more of the defeatism and negativity that we have had over the last few years. it's just an accurate reading of the view in brussels. no, it isn't. it's entirely wrong. because what has happened over the last three years is that the eu has been presented with a uk partner that is basically determined to stay in the customs union and in the single market.

that is effectively what the backstop constrains us to do but if you look at what the backstop does, it presents the prime minister of the uk, the government of the uk, with an unacceptable choice. i understand that. i don't think people do. do you think your viewers really understand... it's a crucial point. what i'm trying to get across to you, is that the eu will not agree... no. to make the backstop a change in the negotiations, it is a precondition for the negotiations. what has changed now is that there is a different approach to the negotiations, a new optimism about what we can do, a new spirit of determination to come properly out of the eu and to get a fantastic deal. and we do that by remitting the solutions to frictionless trade across the irish border, the northern irish border, and indeed all other borders, to the work that needs to be done to do a free—trade agreement. that is the way to do it. and i'm telling you, time will tell, that the eu

will not agree to do that. we shall see. you are quite confident that parliament will not rule out no deal, aren't you? andrew, parliament has had several opportunities just recently... so you are confident? to say that they don't want... so the answer is yes? a no—deal brexit. they have not taken that option. i am increasingly optimistic that my colleagues in parliament, all of us, will be able to work together to get something done. so that is a yes. so if you are so confident, why don't you rule out suspending parliament? the old prorogue question. why won't you rule that out? because, look, i don't want to do it. why don't you rule it out? because i don't think it is sensible at this... i don't want a no—deal brexit either. i understand that as well. then you understand why i'm not ruling it out. why? you have argued, the brexit side has said that brexit will revive our parliamentary democracy. but you might to suspend parliamentary democracy to force through brexit. it's a bizarre position.

i don't want to do that. you will not tonight rule it out. you may prorogue our parliament to get your way. let me be clear what i want to happen, 0k? i want the elected representatives of the people to take their responsibilities and work together to get this thing over the line and i think actually there is an outbreak of common sense starting to take place in our party and across parliament and people are coming together to try to get this thing done. i don't think it will be necessary to anything like proroguing our parliament. but we can't proceed on a wing and johnson prayer. we need to have some idea of what were trying to do. we will proceed with the dignity and maturity and common sense of the parliament of this country and they are going to get it right. only recently you claimed that we could leave on no deal and we just carry on trading with the eu is now, pending a new trade agreement to be done.

you now know that is not true, don't you? it depends what sort of terms you strike with the eu. it might be possible. and i accept that this has to be done by mutual agreement. but it might be possible, for instance, as we come out, to agree under gap 2a, paragraph 5b, that both sides agree to a standstill, a protraction of their existing zero tariff, zero quota arrangements, until such time as we do a free trade deal. and that would be one way forward. and of course it would be up to our friends and partners to decide whether they wanted to go along with that. you talk about article 5b. .. paragraph 5b. article 24. get the detail right. get the details right, andrew. it's article 2a, paragraph 5b. how would you handle paragraph 5c? i would confide entirely in paragraph 5b because that is... but how would you get round what is in 5c? i would confide entirely in paragraph 5b. do you know what is in 5c? no.

i thought you were a man of detail. well, you didn't even know if it was an article or a paragraph. that's not the detail you told the tory hustings... there is enough in paragraph 5b to get us the agreement we want. 5c says you don'tjust need the eu's approval, you need to agree with the eu the shape of a future trade agreement. yes. and a timetable towards getting towards it. can i ask you... i'll tell you why. why this defeatism? this negativity. you ask and i'll tell you and you can respond. why can't we rely on the common sense and goodwill of both parties to get this done? because you would want the eu to agree to the status quo, for perhaps up to ten years, but you would have walked away from the may agreement. you would have withdrawn the 39 million... why do you say ten years? because that is what article 5b allows. you will have to read it again. it's up to ten years. you would refuse the irish backstop. you would have ended free movement. you would have left

the european court. why on earth would the eu agreed to the status quo in these conditions? it's fantasy! no, because it is manifestly in the interests of both sides, andrew. after all, the eu has a very substantial balance of trade with us. they have a considerable surplus in goods alone i think of about £65 billion. and they will want to continue to see this flowing. i'm not surprised to see you smiling because you know it is mission impossible. can i just say, i just do think that that sort of bbc generated gloom and negativity has helped to condition the mindset, seriously, andrew. let's get back to some of the facts. people in this country feel they have been told for three years that they are incapable of leaving the eu and their politicians simply can't do it. my message to the people of this country is that we can do it we were mandated to do it.

and there are all sorts of ways in which we need to unite the country, bringing down crime as i did in london... we have already started... fantastic infrastructure by investing in broadband... mrjohnson, you are here to be scrutinised. let's come onto your economic policies. chancellor hammond has created a physical headroom of around 25 billion in the event of no deal. you do understand that that 25 billion is not in a trunk in the treasury, don't you? listen, there is an opportunity now, if you are talking about our spending plans... you understand it's not in the treasury. you would have to borrow that. there is an opportunity now... the deficit has been greatly reduced, as you know. would you stick to the existing fiscal rules? we would continue to bear down on national debt. and we will be setting out, in a budget and a spending review, exactly what we will be doing on the fiscal rules and everything else. would you continue with the current

government's fiscal rules, which constrain borrowing and spending? what i can tell you is that we will continue to reduce this country's debt and we will be setting out our plans... what is the current debt? the overall government borrowing? it's about 80% of gdp or thereabouts. 83%, but it is 1.8 trillion. sure. one of the existing rules is... we would continue to reduce our national debt... you accept it would limit how much... the headroom now, to take some of that cash and invest it in things that i think it really matter to people, such as levelling up spending on education around this country. such as investing in police. i've talked earlier... you want to spend quite a lot. 20, 30 billion... it's nothing like that sum but we don't even reach the headroom.

would you stick to the second fiscal rule? we will be setting out our spending plans... would you stick to the... 0ur budgetary plans... do you know what the second fiscal rule is? we will be setting out all our plans on any number of fiscal rules in the course of the budget and the spending review. the second rule is that you can't borrow more than 2% of gdp. we will be setting out our plans in the course of the... i repeat, we will continue to bear down on our share, on the debt due you correctly identified. can you tell the viewers, because this does seem to be a more laxical conservative fiscal policy... laxical? what is laxical? can you tell the viewers what laxical means? or even lackadaisical might be more accurate. laxical is not a word. what limits would you place on borrowing? i will set out, we will set out, if i am lucky enough to be successful in this campaign, we will be setting out our spending plans, our fiscal plans... i thought you had done that in this campaign.

i have given some indications. what would be the constraints on borrowing? all we have done is set out some very modest pledges actually which totalled actually about 15 billion. of course it is right to say... they are not that modest, 11 billion, 13 billion... i don't know whose maths that is. 0ur calculations are that it tops out at about 15 billion when you take the policing, the provisions on education and all the rest of it. and these are very sensible things to do. and don't forget that the chancellor's revenues have been exceeding his expenditure. there is cash around. i think most people in this country, andrew, want to see some money go on education and go on policing and that is what we're going to do. and it's also a disgrace that in this country, only 7% of the people have access to full fibre broadband

whereas in spain about 85 or 90% have access. you say it is all costed but you proposed a huge tax cut for the relatively affluent. that was about 9 billion. that was then attacked because it went to people on over 50,000. so you proposed cuts in national insurance for low earners. it comes back to this, you can't be trusted. you say tax cuts for the affluent, no, we better give tax cuts to the lower earners as well. nonsense, come on. you just say whatever it takes to get you out of a hole. nonsense. look at what we did in london when we are massively expanded the living wage. we put cash into the pockets of families... i'm talking about your tax cut proposals. people want to judge what i'm going to do, look at what we did in london. who comes first? we massively expanded the living wage... who comes first, mrjohnson? the people who are earning over 50,000 or those under 12,500 who pay national insurance? we will have a package that looks...

who comes first? the poorest come first. that wasn't what happened in your tax cuts. the poorest come first... the richest came first. look at what happened in london. after eight years as mayor of london... you're not in charge of income tax or national insurance in london. after eight years as mayor of london, it was the poorest quartile of society who saw the biggest growth in life expectancy, and the biggest growth in their overall prosperity. we managed to level up across the entire city, andrew, and that is what we are going to do throughout this country. with infrastructure, with education, with full fibre broadband and of course by fighting crime, that is the way forward. one final question. coming back to the issue of character... let me tell you something. no, you won't tell me something because i've got one more question and i'm going to ask it! go on then. someone who has worked for you, who knows you well, says you are all flaws and no character. the british people will face huge and unprecedented risk with boris johnson as prime minister, won't they? no.

i think the british people face one serious risk and that is that we fail to get brexit done, we fail to unite our country and we thereby are so remiss as to allow the government of this country to pass into the hands of an avowed marxist or semi—marxist who would put up taxes, and you have been talking a lot about taxes just now, andrew, who would put up taxes on inheritance, on pensions, on incomes, on corporation tax. he would be an economic disaster. jeremy corbyn and the labour party would be... boris johnson, thank you... and don't forget, the last time i had to fightjeremy corbyn when we were 17 points behind. that's it from me but you can switch over to the bbc news channel 4 further coverage of these interviews and the rest of the conservative leadership contest. goodbye.

this is bbc news i'm martine croxall. the headlines at eight. the two men battling to win the tory leadership contest face questioning borisjohnson admits his comments could have played a part in the uk ambassador‘s resignation. he said that what someone had relayed to him had certainly would bea relayed to him had certainly would be a factor. jeremy hunt has again been questioned about the october 31st deadline for britain to leave the eu is there any chance we could still go into 2020 and still be a member of the eu? i do not believe so, no i do not believe that will be the case. this is why people do not really trust you on this. in a bbc exclusive, theresa may reflects upon her time on office